December 1997 Gasification Archive

From rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at Tue Dec 2 11:50:56 1997
From: rrauch at fbch.tuwien.ac.at (Reinhard Rauch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: methanatiion
Message-ID: <34843D65.B687FB90@fbch.tuwien.ac.at>

Dear list members!

My name is Reinhard Rauch and i am doing my Ph. D. thesis at the
technical university in vienna. We are working on biomass gasification
in a fast internally circulating fluidized bed reactor (FICFB). Since
May 1995 we have operated a 100kWth test model using steam as
gasification agent. This gives us a product gas, nearly free of
nitrogen, with the gross calorific value of 13MJ/Nm3 dry gas.

We are now interested to burn our product gas in a gas turbine. The
problem is that the ratio between H2 and CO is not ideal for standard
gas turbines. In this connection we have started to produce methane from

the product gas, by heating the gas to about 300°C and letting it
through a nickel catalyst. We have not however found an ideal catalyst,
and my question is: Do any of you know if there is any big scale
methanation plants? Our product gas composition is :

H2: 30 vol%
N2: 3 vol%
CO: 24 vol%
CO2: 25 vol%
CH4: 12 vol%
C2H4: 3 vol%
H2O: 3 vol%

I am interested in the whole process as well as the catalyst used. If
any of you know about any litterature or persons involved in a such
plant I would be grateful.

Sincerely,

Reinhard Rauch
--
***********************************
Reinhard Rauch
Institute for Chemical Engineering,
Fuel and Environmental Technology
University of Technology Vienna
Getreidemarkt 9
1060 Vienna/AUSTRIA

http://edv1.vt.tuwien.ac.at/AG_HOFBA/Vergaser/e_vergas.htm

Phone: (++43-1) 58801-4710
Fax: (++43-1) 5876394
Email:rrauch@fbch.tuwien.ac.at
***********************************

From SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com Wed Dec 3 15:10:51 1997
From: SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com (SHGOLDT0@wcc.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:24 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass gasification mailing list
Message-ID: <0000EE6C.1586@wcc.com>

Dear Sirs,

I have a strong professional interest in biomass gasification and I am
working with New Zealand memebers of the "gasification mailing list".

Please can you add my home email address to the biomass gasification
mailing list. My home email adress is:-

gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz

If you have any questions about this request please emial me either at
my home emial address or at my work email address which should be in
the header of this message.

I look forward to interesting communications.

Yours faithfully

Steve Goldthorpe

.

o be a

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Thu Dec 4 22:41:53 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass gasification mailing list
Message-ID: <199712042243_MC2-2AC1-92A2@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve:

Nice to have you on board. What are you interests in gasification? Lots
of activity in NZ!

I sent the message:

Subscribe gasification gldthrp@nznet.gen.Nz

To Majordomo@crest.Org. If you want out, just send "unsubscribe
gasification" to them.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Dec 5 13:21:39 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: FWD From Jeff Phillips Re: Molten Metal Technology
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971205102545.00a2b348@mail.teleport.com>

>Unfortunately, today my dream of using gasification to find a solution
to the world's hazardous waste problems ended. Molten Metal
Technology filed for bankruptcy earlier this week, and today virtually
the entire R&D staff (at one time we had over 100 people in R&D) was
laid off.

Tom, please change my e-mail address on the list from
JPhillips@MMT.com to 72250.16@compuserve.com
<Done. T.M. 12/5/97>

List members, if you know of anyone who may be hiring in the area of
gasification, I'd be very appreciative of any leads.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Massachusetts

From rene at ribsys.com Sun Dec 7 04:42:10 1997
From: rene at ribsys.com (Informatica i Ofimatica CRC)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <01bd0257$4eece440$LocalHost@server>

I am professional of the computer science and i have found their it science
and have found their it wels by chance.
For their knowledge and, as they have commented me, in Mora d'Ebre city, its
a company that has in operation a plant of gasification of biomass and that this
selling the energy to an electric company.
Greetings

From tmiles at teleport.com Sun Dec 7 18:04:00 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971207150445.00c26a1c@mail.teleport.com>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 773 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19971207/f5c61916/attachment.bin
From gonzalezcarl at mayo.com.ar Mon Dec 8 16:18:00 1997
From: gonzalezcarl at mayo.com.ar (Carlos Gonzalez)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: swimming pool, hot water
Message-ID: <199712081521.SAA02384@relay2.impsat1.com>

I want information on boilers to gas to heat a swimming pool of 300000
liters.
And that possibility exists of power to send it to the Argentina.
Thanks
Carlos Gonzalez

From sam at musicshop.co.uk Tue Dec 9 08:16:52 1997
From: sam at musicshop.co.uk (Sam)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pentane
Message-ID: <01bd04a4$ef226bc0$4000000a@NewSam.ims>

I have a friend who claimed to have had commercial quantities of Pentane. I
know nothing about it and I don't how he managed to find. Anyway if you have
any info regarding this or if you know people who can use this thing please
let me know and I will forward the information to him.

Thanks
Sam

From Hugh.H.Yendole at opc.simis.com Wed Dec 10 03:51:12 1997
From: Hugh.H.Yendole at opc.simis.com (Hugh.H.Yendole@opc.simis.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: swimming pool, hot water
Message-ID: <"/GUID:F3F4ED8B9F6FD111B07000805FC1FDC9"@MHS>

We may be able to help, but I have a couple of extra questions.

What temperature is the pool to be heated to? - is it indoors or outdoors?
What is the fuel source - is it sustainable? What is the price?
What is the spot price of a Kwh sold to the local grid?
What are the local environmental facilities - is there an established sewage system, and what are the limits on discharges into this system?

Where is this project based, and who is financing it?

Regards,

Hugh Yendole

----------
From: c=GB;a=CWMAIL;p=NET;dda:RFC-822=owner-gasification(a)crest.org;
Sent: 08 December 1997 22:24
To: c=GB;a=CWMAIL;p=NET;dda:RFC-822=gasification(a)crest.org;
Subject: GAS-L: swimming pool, hot water

I want information on boilers to gas to heat a swimming pool of 300000
liters.
And that possibility exists of power to send it to the Argentina.
Thanks
Carlos Gonzalez

From poncelet at term.ucl.ac.be Wed Dec 10 10:18:48 1997
From: poncelet at term.ucl.ac.be (Jean-Marc Poncelet)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flash pyrolysis
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971210161844.0069e248@spot.term.ucl.ac.be>

Dear gasification colleagues,

I need your help. I'm developing a gasification model for a circulating
fluidised bed gasifier and i'm just studying the flash pyrolysis.

I'm trying to find papers about wood chips flash pyrolysis (the size of the
chips must be > 1 cm and temperature > 700 °C). I'm looking for detailed
experimental results.
Thank you very much.

Best regards,

---------------------------------------------------------------
PONCELET JEAN-MARC
Research Engineer

University of Louvain - Department of Mechanical Engineering
+++ GEB (Group Energy Biomass) +++

Place du Levant 2
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
BELGIQUE

Tél.: +32(0)10-47 22 32
Fax.: +32(0)10-45 26 92
----------------------------------------------------------------

From bacaicoa at posta.unizar.es Thu Dec 11 00:43:17 1997
From: bacaicoa at posta.unizar.es (Pedro Garcia Bacaicoa)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flash pyrolysis
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19971211054943.0067ba18@posta.unizar.es>

At 04:18 PM 10/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Dear gasification colleagues,
>
>I need your help. I'm developing a gasification model for a circulating
>fluidised bed gasifier and i'm just studying the flash pyrolysis.
>
>I'm trying to find papers about wood chips flash pyrolysis (the size of the
>chips must be > 1 cm and temperature > 700 °C). I'm looking for detailed
>experimental results.
>Thank you very much.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>PONCELET JEAN-MARC
>Research Engineer
>
>University of Louvain - Department of Mechanical Engineering
> +++ GEB (Group Energy Biomass) +++
>
>Place du Levant 2
>B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
>BELGIQUE
>
>Tél.: +32(0)10-47 22 32
>Fax.: +32(0)10-45 26 92
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

There is a network on pyrolysis in the frame of the EU. Several universities
and others are part of this. Its name is "PyNE" and coordinator is Dr. Tony
Bridwater from Aston Univ. (UK). A member is Ms. M Maggi, at Université
Catholique de Lovain. Unite de Catalyse et Chimie des Matériax. ph:
10-473-652. You can get more information from:

http://www.ceac.aston.ac.uk/PyNE

Regards
*********************************************************
Pedro Garcia Bacaicoa
Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Tecnologías del Medio Ambiente
(Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering)
Centro Politécnico Superior
María de Luna, 3. 50015-Zaragoza (Spain)
ph: +34-976761880
fax: +34-976761861
e-mail: bacaicoa@posta.unizar.es

From filipe at poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br Thu Dec 11 12:41:58 1997
From: filipe at poisson.iem.efei.rmg.br (filipe)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: black liquor gasification
Message-ID: <349025B3.1575@iem.efei.rmg.br>

To whom It may concern:

My name is Filipe von T. de Souza Carmo and I have been developing a
master's degree thesis on the gasification of biomass and black liquor
for the Brazilian Pulp and Paper Industry in the Federal Engineering
School of Itajuba, Brazil.

My study comprises the thermodynamical and economical assessment of IGCC
systems in order to determine whether its utilization is feasible for
the industry.

Even though the environmental aspect plays a major role nowadays and
gasification enables us to lessen the hazards of CO2 by plummeting its
emission rates and the use of gas turbines does yield considerably more
electricity, there are some aspects which have hampered the project:

1-the amount of steam produced is so low that it is not possible to meet
the steam demand without the burning of other fuels;What about the
mingling of this gas with other fuels such as natural gas?

2- the black liquor gasifiers so far reseached are quite expensive, what
might preclude investement;

3- Concerning the use of latent heat from the saturated gas leaving the
gasifier, is 200 degrees celsius the suitable temperature, for all paprs
so far reserched have established this value?

I wonder if it is possible that you share some available information
with me regarding some research on this area. I'd be glad to disclose
any aspect concerning my thesis.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Mechanical Engineer Filipe von T. de s. Carmo

filipe@iem.efei.rmg.br

From aptour at airpoitiers.fr Fri Dec 12 13:53:44 1997
From: aptour at airpoitiers.fr (de Nas de Tourris Olivier)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <1330165808-43893752@cyberscope.fr>

test

From gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in Fri Dec 12 15:01:04 1997
From: gayathri at cgpl.iisc.ernet.in (Gayathri V)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: black liquor gasification
Message-ID: <01bd06b5$2dbc3c00$88411090@Gayathri.cgpl.iisc.ernet.in>

you can look into our web page and if u need more info
feel free to write to us.

Mrs.Gayathri V
BIOMASS USERS NETWORK - INDIA
Project Engineer
Combustion Gasification and Propulsion Lab.
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
IISc . Bangalore 560 012
Phone :
(off) +91-80-3092338 or 3348536
(Res) :+91-80-6632717
Fax :+91-80-3444692 or 3341683
E-mail : gayathri@aero.iisc.ernet.in
gayathri@cgpl.iisc.ernet.in
Internet: http://144.16.73.100/~mukunda/home.html

"Do your best, forget the rest, or the rest will spoil your best!"

From VIKINGOF5 at aol.com Fri Dec 12 19:39:20 1997
From: VIKINGOF5 at aol.com (VIKINGOF5)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: No Subject
Message-ID: <ac433749.3491d9fe@aol.com>

hi,
I'm trying to find out info on pressurized gas if you can send some info I'd
appreciate it.
thank you
Lisa

From aptour at airpoitiers.fr Sat Dec 13 14:37:01 1997
From: aptour at airpoitiers.fr (de Nas de Tourris Olivier)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Brazil BP RE invesments
Message-ID: <1330076811-49250957@cyberscope.fr>

Hi ,

I'm looking for the latest press informations from this week on increasing
investments from British Petroleum in Brazil for renewable ernergy ,
Thanks for response

Our product is , 60 , 100 , 200 , 600 Kva units
regards,
Dr de Nas de Tourris

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 14 07:52:58 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
Message-ID: <199712140755_MC2-2BDB-BC13@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Ethanol from Caners:

One of the problems of ethanol from cane or corn is that 10-20% of the
plant becomes the ethanol feedstock while the rest of the plant (bagasse,
stover, cobs, field trash, ....) has very little use.

Rogerio's suggestion has great merit, since the coming IGCC plants can
generate electricity with 40% efficiency at a relatively small scale (10 MW
certainly, 50 kW??).

Dan Jantzen of Winrock has been busily converting the sugar mills of the
world into (steam) power plants and publishes a newsletter on ways and
means. He has recently returned to the US from directing the Delhi Winrock
office. Maybe he can broaden his interest to include other AG waste to
power.

Incidentally, Joe Craig of Craytech is close to having a marketable 1 MW
IGCC plant.

Lets integrate all this and fund it from global warming fears.

Yours, ` TOM REED

Message text written by Rogerio Miranda

Jaime: What are the possibilities for the brazilian ethanol mills to
produce additionaly commercial electricity year around based only in
biomass ?
<

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 14 08:06:51 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fast/Flash vs Conventional pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199712140754_MC2-2BDB-BC0A@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Poncelet (and gasisfication and stove node):

We here at GASIFICATION: CREST are interested in your search for
information on Fast/Flash Pyrolysis. I have too many references and don't
know where to begin. So instead, I hope we can have a thread here to get a
concensus of what our GASIFICATION community is thinking.

[My apologies to the 200 members of GASIFICATION and 150 STOVERS if you
think this doesn't belong here. This discussion will be on PYROLYSIS
which has no home on the eb. So our nodes become homes to related subjects
like PYROLYSIS, BRIQUETTING, CHARCOAL, ASH, INCINERATION, ..., all
peripheral to our central themes. PYROLYSIS is central to both
GASIFICATION and STOVES, so read, learn and RESPOND.]

1) FLASH pyrolysis and FAST pyrolysis mean much the same thing. Occidental
Petroleum coined the term FLASH pyrolysis to apply to their patented
(~1970?) process for MSW; Jim Diebold changed the name to FAST pyrolysis
for his ablative pyrolysis process as practiced at China Lake in 1977 and
from 1978 to 1997 at NREL. I will forward a copy of this to Jim, asking
for his comments and corrections.

2) FAST pyrolysis produces primarily gas (>90%) for Tp>700C or pyrolysis
oil for Tp<600C. This oil, in yields to 70% is also called variously "wood
oil", (Reed, 1985) "wood syrups" (Antal, 1984), and various other names
more recently (please add). Chemically the oil is quite different from the
polynuclear aromatic "wood tars" produced with longer residence times at
Tp>800C.

How fast is "Fast/flash"? I once published an article (ACS Fuels ~ 1986)
attempting to differentiate Fast from conventional pyrolysis. The fast
pyrolysis people usually use very small particles and claim high heatup
rates - 10^3 or 10^4 C/sec. Don't you believe it. They are looking at
process temperature, not particle temperatures.

3) By contrast, CONVENTIONAL pyrolysis produces ~ 1/3 charcoal, 1/3 (tar
plus pyroligneous acid) 1/3 pyrolysis gas.

4) FAST pyrolysis is many things to many people. It can be defined in
terms of heating rate, heat transfer, Biot number, particle size, ........
I hope others will propose more accurate definitions.

5) The literature of gasification is FULL of hundreds of papers on "fast"
pyrolysis. I invite our members to lead us to their FAVORITE papers, even
if they include a few of their own.

So, Poncelet, I hope this unleashes a stream of references that will fill
your needs and educate us all. And I hope in return that you will keep us
posted (e-posted?) on your results.

Yours truly, TOM REED
~~~~
Dear gasification colleagues,

I need your help. I'm developing a gasification model for a circulating
fluidised bed gasifier and i'm just studying the flash pyrolysis.

I'm trying to find papers about wood chips flash pyrolysis (the size of the
chips must be > 1 cm and temperature > 700 °C). I'm looking for detailed
experimental results.
Thank you very much.

Best regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
PONCELET JEAN-MARC
Research Engineer

University of Louvain - Department of Mechanical Engineering
+++ GEB (Group Energy Biomass) +++

Place du Levant 2
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
BELGIQUE

Tél.: +32(0)10-47 22 32
Fax.: +32(0)10-45 26 92
<

From donj at aloha.net Sun Dec 14 16:06:16 1997
From: donj at aloha.net (Don Jacobs)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
In-Reply-To: <199712140755_MC2-2BDB-BC13@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <l03130302b0b9e39b88f6@[204.94.116.100]>

At 7:55 AM -0500 12/14/97, Thomas Reed wrote:
>Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
>Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Ethanol from Caners:
>
>One of the problems of ethanol from cane or corn is that 10-20% of the
>plant becomes the ethanol feedstock while the rest of the plant (bagasse,
>stover, cobs, field trash, ....) has very little use.
>
[snip]
>
***************

In Hawaii the bagasse, with 50% moisture content, is burned in the sugar
mill boiler. Surplus energy is converted into electricity and sold through
the local utility company. One wet ton of bagasse replaces one barrel of
oil.

With NREL technology, one dry ton of bagasse can be converted into 95
gallons of ethanol.

Aloha
Don Jacobs
donj@aloha.net

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 15 00:03:43 1997
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acetone from wood Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <3494BA01.3AEE@xtra.co.nz>

Hi everyone - One of the products of slow wood pyrolysis is liquid (tar
plus pyroligneous acid) with a portion being acetone and acetic acid
which can also be converted to acetone. What I have tried to find out
from various other news groups (in vain) is the combustion engine fuel
properties of acetone? Sorry if this is not quite the right place for
such a question but I am desperate.

Thanks

Deano

From rcbrown at iastate.edu Mon Dec 15 14:19:25 1997
From: rcbrown at iastate.edu (Robert C Brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fast/Flash vs Conventional pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <199712140754_MC2-2BDB-BC0A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971215132609.0082b860@pop-3.iastate.edu>

Ken Bryden at the University of Wisconsin is finishing a dissertation on a
model of wood pyrolysis. Sorry I don't have an e-mail for him, but he will
be joining our faculty in January. If you inquire at that time, I will
pass along his new e-mail at Iowa State University.

Robert Brown

>Yours truly, TOM REED
> ~~~~
>Dear gasification colleagues,
>
>I need your help. I'm developing a gasification model for a circulating
>fluidised bed gasifier and i'm just studying the flash pyrolysis.
>
>I'm trying to find papers about wood chips flash pyrolysis (the size of the
>chips must be > 1 cm and temperature > 700 °C). I'm looking for detailed
>experimental results.
>Thank you very much.
>
>Best regards,
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>PONCELET JEAN-MARC
>Research Engineer
>
>University of Louvain - Department of Mechanical Engineering
> +++ GEB (Group Energy Biomass) +++
>
>Place du Levant 2
>B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
>BELGIQUE
>
>Tél.: +32(0)10-47 22 32
>Fax.: +32(0)10-45 26 92
><
>
Robert C. Brown
Iowa State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
2020 H. M. Black Bldg.
Ames, IA 50011
Tel: 515-294-8733
Fax: 515-294-3261
E-mail: rcbrown@iastate.edu
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/coe/me/homepage.html

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Tue Dec 16 12:56:50 1997
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
Message-ID: <199712161214_MC2-2C31-1E8A@compuserve.com>

List Members,

As I understand it, one of the drawbacks to larger-scale use of "waste"
biomass feeds (e.g., bagasse,stover, cobs, field trash, etc) is the high
cost of transporting the feeds to where they are to be used - especially
since one is in reality transporting a lot of water.

One possibility would be to convert the biomass into charcoal using a lot
of small-scale gasifiers/pyrolyzers/reactors scattered about and then
transporting the charcoal to a central location where it is used to feed an
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (or for that matter a conventional
steam boiler).

The use of a low-volatile, high carbon content feed into an IGCC has
already been proven (Texaco is using Pet. Coke to feed an IGCC at their
refinery in Kansas), and charcoal production from biomass has been around
for a long time.

What do list members see as being the biggest risk factors or other
barriers to such a concept?

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From rcbrown at iastate.edu Tue Dec 16 15:57:50 1997
From: rcbrown at iastate.edu (Robert C Brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
In-Reply-To: <199712161214_MC2-2C31-1E8A@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971216150442.007aaa30@pop-3.iastate.edu>

Jeff: According to proximate analysis of these waste materials, the amount
of fixed carbon is only on the order of 15-20%. Much of the heating value
is in the volatiles, which would be wasted in small scale gasifiers.

Robert Brown

At 12:14 PM 12/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>List Members,
>
>As I understand it, one of the drawbacks to larger-scale use of "waste"
>biomass feeds (e.g., bagasse,stover, cobs, field trash, etc) is the high
>cost of transporting the feeds to where they are to be used - especially
>since one is in reality transporting a lot of water.
>
>One possibility would be to convert the biomass into charcoal using a lot
>of small-scale gasifiers/pyrolyzers/reactors scattered about and then
>transporting the charcoal to a central location where it is used to feed an
>Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (or for that matter a conventional
>steam boiler).
>
>The use of a low-volatile, high carbon content feed into an IGCC has
>already been proven (Texaco is using Pet. Coke to feed an IGCC at their
>refinery in Kansas), and charcoal production from biomass has been around
>for a long time.
>
>What do list members see as being the biggest risk factors or other
>barriers to such a concept?
>
>Jeff Phillips
>Bridgewater, Mass.
>
Robert C. Brown
Iowa State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
2020 H. M. Black Bldg.
Ames, IA 50011
Tel: 515-294-8733
Fax: 515-294-3261
E-mail: rcbrown@iastate.edu
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/coe/me/homepage.html

From aptour at cyberscope.fr Tue Dec 16 18:21:42 1997
From: aptour at cyberscope.fr (aptour@cyberscope.fr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Power plant 100%Gaz
Message-ID: <34971D4D.6AAE@cyberscope.fr>

Dear list members,

after 30 years of research , we are able to present our units available
with easy maintenance and operation , facility and simplicity .
Worlwide units are running , (the oldiest is still running with 32000
total time hours !)

Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
M.RE Research&Consult
Licensed Equipment

B1400
Power range : 110-160 kW
Rate output : 132-192 Kva
specific consumption:
1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
-1 KW electric
-2 KW thermics
Option : exchanger to cogeneration
Feedind system capacity(in liters) 1100

B1400
Power range : 160-300 kW
Rate output : 200-375 Kva
specific consumption:
1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
-1 KW electric
-2 KW thermics
Option : exchanger to cogeneration
Feedind system capacity(in liters) 2000

B2200
Power range : 300-480 kW
Rate output : 360-600 Kva
specific consumption:
1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
-1 KW electric
-2 KW thermics
Option : exchanger to cogeneration
Feedind system capacity(in liters) :automatic feeding

1)-Saving calculated in liters of liquid fuel from our biomass gaz
generator Power Plant 100% gas wooden waste to produce electricity and
terms type 200 kva

1 year 1.020.000 kw electrics ) = 306.000 fuel liters
) 0,300 liter per Kwe
10 years 10.200.000 kw electrics ) =3.060.000 fuel liters

2)-Our biomass gaz generator included cogeneration in comparison with
diesel generation

1 year 1.400.000 kw thermics ) = 140.000 fuel liters
) 1 fuel liter per 10 kwt
10 years 14.000.000 kw thermics ) = 1.400.000 fuel liters

3)- Saving in fuel liters with our biomass gaz generator Utilization

Total for 1 Year kw electric and thermic = 446.000 fuel liters
10 years kw electric and thermic = 4.460.000 fuel liters

From SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com Tue Dec 16 19:12:18 1997
From: SHGOLDT0 at wcc.com (SHGOLDT0@wcc.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: charcoal production
Message-ID: <00018834.1586@wcc.com>

Hi,

Jeff Phillip's concept of preprocessing biomass into charcoal, and
separately using charcoal as a fuel, is a very helpful contribution to
the evaluation of the economics of biomass conversion. It
distinguishes the cost of biomass material processing from the revenue
arising from the use of a fuel.

Charcoal produced from biomass sources can potentially enter the
market as a replacement for coal. The coal market has a well developed
infrastructure and established price/quality/location relationships.
On this basis it is relatively easy to value the charcoal produced
from biomass in terms of $/GJ.

The value of biomass charcoal may, in due course, be enhanced by
carbon credits, tradable permits of other economic instruments which
evolve from the recent negotiations in Kyoto on greenhouse gas
emissions. Whatever, they will provide a mechanism for quantifying the
environmental value in terms of the ubiquitous dollar.

Therefore, the challenge for biomass process developers is to produce
a processed fuel product at a $/GJ price which can compete in the
conventional fuels market. This will be strongly dependent on scale.
location and the positive or negative value of the biomass feed. If
the co-production of high-value by-products from biomass can be
achieved, that could be a major contributor to economic viability.

Merry Christmas

Steve Goldthorpe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
Author: Goldthorpe <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz> at Internet
Date: 12/17/97 7:14 AM

>Return-Path: owner-gasification@crest.org
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:14:35 -0500
>From: Jeff Phillips <MaryPhillips1@compuserve.com>
>Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
>To: "INTERNET:gasification@crest.org" <gasification@crest.org>
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by solstice.crest.org
id MAA04589
>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>
>List Members,
>
>As I understand it, one of the drawbacks to larger-scale use of "waste"
>biomass feeds (e.g., bagasse,stover, cobs, field trash, etc) is the high
>cost of transporting the feeds to where they are to be used - especially
>since one is in reality transporting a lot of water.
>
>One possibility would be to convert the biomass into charcoal using a lot
>of small-scale gasifiers/pyrolyzers/reactors scattered about and then
>transporting the charcoal to a central location where it is used to feed an
>Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (or for that matter a conventional
>steam boiler).
>
>The use of a low-volatile, high carbon content feed into an IGCC has
>already been proven (Texaco is using Pet. Coke to feed an IGCC at their
>refinery in Kansas), and charcoal production from biomass has been around
>for a long time.
>
>What do list members see as being the biggest risk factors or other
>barriers to such a concept?
>
>Jeff Phillips
>Bridgewater, Mass.
>
>

Received: from wcc.com (144.207.1.50) by ccmail.wcc.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.12 Enterprise) id 0001860C; Tue, 16 Dec 97 11:10:10
-0700
Received: from denfw.wcc.com (h253.s2.wcc.com) by wcc.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA14370; Tue, 16 Dec 97 11:10:33 MST
Received: from ns1.nznet.gen.nz ([203.98.34.1]) by denfw.wcc.com
via smtpd (for sunspot.wcc.com [144.207.1.50]) with SMTP; 27 Sep 1997
18:05:54 UT
Received: from max1-ak47.nznet.gen.nz (max1-ak47.nznet.gen.nz [203.98.34.112])
by nznet.gen.nz (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA14789 for <shgoldt0@wcc.com>; Wed,
17 Dec 1997 07:14:20 +1300
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:14:20 +1300
Message-Id: <199712161814.HAA14789@nznet.gen.nz>
X-Sender: gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: shgoldt0@wcc.com
From: Goldthorpe <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz>
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production

From aptour at airpoitiers.fr Tue Dec 16 20:06:26 1997
From: aptour at airpoitiers.fr (aptour@airpoitiers.fr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT
Message-ID: <349735D9.5EEC@airpoitiers.fr>

Dear list members ,

I present here some information on projects on course available worlwide
with our proved technology.

Reference with thousand of hours of operation can be found in Guyana ,
Denmark , France , Costa Rica , and a number of African countries mostly
at sawmill sites where gaz generator economics are highly favorable.

Example:Gaz Generator 600 kVa

PROJECT TO ELECTRIFY VILLAGE EQUIPPED WITH POWER PLANT B2200

Gaz Generator 600 KVA- 437 KWE using 430 kwe+860 kwt

Suppose electricity for a house

-1 Refrigerator
-1 iron
-1 TV
- fews lights
- others smalls household requisites

3 kWe

it means possibility to electrify

430 kwe
________ = 143 HOUSES x 6 persons = 858 inhabitants
3 kwe

Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
M.RE Research & Consult
_____FRANCE______
Fax: 33 5 49 37 93 65

From aptour at airpoitiers.fr Tue Dec 16 20:18:39 1997
From: aptour at airpoitiers.fr (aptour@airpoitiers.fr)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
Message-ID: <349738B3.7906@airpoitiers.fr>

Key Sucess Factors

Four key sucess factors are needed to ensure the economic viability of
biomass gasification systems :

- First the site must be remote and difficult to reach in terms of
delivering conventional fuels .

- Second , the biomas supply must be as regular as possible in terms of
quality and quantity .

- Third , unskilled laborers with a high degree of motivation must be
employed to operate and maintain the gasifiers.

- Fourth , the system must operate at a stable load for not less than 2
000 to 8000 hours /year .

Merry Christmas ;)

Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
M.RE Research & Consult
_____FRANCE______
Fax: 33 5 49 37 93 65

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Tue Dec 16 22:09:22 1997
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
Message-ID: <199712162135_MC2-2C3D-463C@compuserve.com>

Robert,

You wrote:

> According to proximate analysis of these waste materials, the amount
> of fixed carbon is only on the order of 15-20%. Much of the heating
value
> is in the volatiles, which would be wasted in small scale gasifiers.

I'll admit that on the face of if, production of charcoal from biomass may
not look like a clear winner, but, if
the waste material was going to be thrown away if it was not converted into
charcoal, maybe it doesn't matter that only a small fraction of the waste's
energy gets converted into charcoal. The important thing is that the fuel
energy that remains (in the charcoal) is of high density (i.e., high kJ/kg)
which means the transportation cost is relatively low, and the charcoal can
be used with existing coal-fired technology.

The big challenge, and the big question, is at what cost can one produce
charcoal from waste biomass materials? If it is >$5/MMBtu, then you can
stop right there because you'll never compete with other fossil fuels -
except in very remote areas.

As I see it, another big challenge would be in finding a way to efficiently
use the gas produced from the small scale gasifiers. If that energy could
be used, then the cost of charcoal production would go down. Any ideas out
there on what one could do with the producer gas?

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Dec 16 22:19:32 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acetone from wood Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199712162003_MC2-2C37-35B1@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Deano:

Acetone is very flamable, and being an oxygenate, may also have high
octane. Since is much too valuable to use as a fuel, I am not sure anyone
has more exact answers to your question.

Wood pyrolysis only yields a % or 2% acetone (3-4% methanol from hardwoods,
none from soft), so why do you ask?

Yours truly, TOM REED

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Tue Dec 16 23:32:47 1997
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal making from wastes
In-Reply-To: <199712162135_MC2-2C3D-463C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.971217104707.32673B-100000@alphaserv.ait.ac.th>

I have followed with interest the postings on charcoal making from wastes.
Considering the shortage of fuelwood from which charcoal is traditionally
made and the fact that wastes/residues often remain unutilized causing
disposal problem, the option appears interesting.

A wide range of technologies appear to have been developed to commercial/
demonstration level for carbonizing residues and wastes,e.g. Thompson
converter (north America), Pillard Rotary carbonizer (France), carbo-gas
retort etc. In Sudan, there was an interesting Dutch funded project on
charcoal making from cotton stalks in late 1980s. USAID funded several
projects in Asia and Africa. Coffe husk, rice husk, sawdust etc have been
successfully carbonized to produce charcoal powder.Kenya Planters
Cooperative Union has been operating a plant commercially for several
years for making charcoal from coffee husk.

May I request the list members to report about working plants/technologies
for charcoal making from residues to continue this discussion so that we
can understand the state of the technology better.

(It may be noted that briquetting sawdust and subsequent carbonization to
produce charcoal in briquette form is an established commercial technology
in many Asian countries.We had prepared a detailed report (about 500
pages) titled "Biocoal:Technology and Economics" as the final report of a
GTZ funded project. The report covered different apspects, e.g.
briquetting, charcoal making, etc. A few copies of the publication may
still be available. I would be happy to forward any request for copies to
the publisher "Regional Energy Resources Information Center, Bangkok.)

The main drawback of charcoal making is normally the inefficiency
resulting from flaring or venting of the volatile matter. If charcoal
making plants could be located in places where the byproduct heat could
be utilized, then this drawback can be overcome.

We are currently preparing a report on Charcoal making from residues. The
report will also include case studies, a directory of current research,
and a list of manufacturers. We would welcome contribution of case
studies, and information on research/development projects for this
purpose. Any significant contribution will be acknowledged in the report.

S.C. Bhattacharya
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
Professor 524 5913 (Res)
Energy Program
Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
PO Box 4, Klong Luang 516 2126
Pathumthani 12120
Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From jdomac at public.srce.hr Wed Dec 17 04:52:13 1997
From: jdomac at public.srce.hr (Julije Domac)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT
Message-ID: <199712170956.KAA08607@jagor.srce.hr>

Dear Sir,
I work as National Energy Program for Biomass Use (BIOEN) coordinator in Croatia and I am very interested in your project. It looks very promising and I think it could be very sutable for Croatia too. Please, can you send me more information about it?

Sincerely Yours,
Julije Domac
BIOEN Program coordinator
Energy Institute "Hrvoje Pozar"
Ulica grada Vukovara 37, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

----------
> From: aptour@airpoitiers.fr
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT
> Date: 1997. prosinac 17 03:15
>
> Dear list members ,
>
> I present here some information on projects on course available worlwide
> with our proved technology.
>
> Reference with thousand of hours of operation can be found in Guyana ,
> Denmark , France , Costa Rica , and a number of African countries mostly
> at sawmill sites where gaz generator economics are highly favorable.
>
> Example:Gaz Generator 600 kVa
>
> PROJECT TO ELECTRIFY VILLAGE EQUIPPED WITH POWER PLANT B2200
>
> Gaz Generator 600 KVA- 437 KWE using 430 kwe+860 kwt
>
> Suppose electricity for a house
>
> -1 Refrigerator
> -1 iron
> -1 TV
> - fews lights
> - others smalls household requisites
>
> 3 kWe
>
> it means possibility to electrify
>
> 430 kwe
> ________ = 143 HOUSES x 6 persons = 858 inhabitants
> 3 kwe
>
>
> Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
> M.RE Research & Consult
> _____FRANCE______
> Fax: 33 5 49 37 93 65

From jim.birse at dial.pipex.com Wed Dec 17 05:53:52 1997
From: jim.birse at dial.pipex.com (Jim Birse)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Use of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <01BD0ADA.7F388240@ao069.du.pipex.com>

Dear all

Jeff Philips wrote:

As you probably know there are a number of ways of efficiently using the producer gas from small-scale gasifiers, in particular using a basic gas / converted diesel engine. In the UK we have a number of companies developing small (50 to 250 kWe) gasification / gas engine generating / CHP systems.

Two commercial demonstration CHP units (both 100kWe) have recently been commissioned by members of British BioGen in Northern Ireland. Both of these units will ultimately run completely on wood-chip from sustainable Short Rotation Coppice (SRC, willow) plantations.

The electricity from both installations is sold to the regional first tier electricity supplier under a "Northern Ireland Non Fossil Fuels Obligation" contract - 15 years index linked premium price; underwritten by Non Fossil Purchasing Agency, funded by Fossil Fuel Levy.

The heat is being used on one site to heat several houses and cottages as well as to dry grain and wood-chips, on the other it is used to heat a "Museum of Industrial History" and associated offices and workshops.

While this technology is obviously not yet fully commercial in UK energy markets, it is not nearly so far off as one might imagine; the cost of electricity from these installations, in the region of 6 to 7 pence per kWh is broadly competitive with the price of retail "mains" electricity in Northern Ireland. For rural industries the option of on site generation is real. When the value of the heat is included the economics start to look even better.

Once these (and up and coming) technologies are properly developed and shown to be reliable volume production and value engineering promise significant price reduction. We are confident that small biomass CHP will soon be a major player in world energy markets.

For more information on Bio-Energy in the UK please feel free to get in touch.

Best Regards,

Jim Birse
===================================================================================
Jim Birse Tel: 0171 831 7222
British BioGen Fax: 0171 831 7223
7th Floor info@britishbiogen.co.uk
63-66 Hatton Garden
London EC1N 8LE
British BioGen are Trade Association to the UK Bio-Energy Industry

From DMcilveenw at aol.com Wed Dec 17 08:05:20 1997
From: DMcilveenw at aol.com (DMcilveenw)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Power plant 100%Gaz
Message-ID: <4d0138c5.3497cef6@aol.com>

Can you send me some written material, or journal articles on your equipment,
please? It can be in French or English (or even German). My wife is French.

My main research area is in computer simulation of biomass-fired power
generation systems. We generally do contract research in the
JOULE/THERMIE/APAS/FAIR programmes with other European partners. I am working
with the Centre d'Etudes et Recherches du Charbon on one of these contracts.

Dr. David McIlveen-Wright,
Northern Ireland Centre for Energy Research and Technology (NICERT),
University of Ulster,
Coleraine BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland

Tel: 00 44 1265 324400 or 58758
Fax: 00 44 1265 324900
Email: dr.mcilveen-wright@ulst.ac.uk or dmcilveenw@aol.com

From rcbrown at iastate.edu Wed Dec 17 10:11:36 1997
From: rcbrown at iastate.edu (Robert C Brown)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
In-Reply-To: <199712162135_MC2-2C3D-463C@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971217091819.0083e560@pop-3.iastate.edu>

Jeff: Crop drying would be a logical application of the producer gas.

Robert

At 09:35 PM 12/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> According to proximate analysis of these waste materials, the amount
>> of fixed carbon is only on the order of 15-20%. Much of the heating
>value
>> is in the volatiles, which would be wasted in small scale gasifiers.
>
>I'll admit that on the face of if, production of charcoal from biomass may
>not look like a clear winner, but, if
>the waste material was going to be thrown away if it was not converted into
>charcoal, maybe it doesn't matter that only a small fraction of the waste's
>energy gets converted into charcoal. The important thing is that the fuel
>energy that remains (in the charcoal) is of high density (i.e., high kJ/kg)
>which means the transportation cost is relatively low, and the charcoal can
>be used with existing coal-fired technology.
>
>The big challenge, and the big question, is at what cost can one produce
>charcoal from waste biomass materials? If it is >$5/MMBtu, then you can
>stop right there because you'll never compete with other fossil fuels -
>except in very remote areas.
>
>As I see it, another big challenge would be in finding a way to efficiently
>use the gas produced from the small scale gasifiers. If that energy could
>be used, then the cost of charcoal production would go down. Any ideas out
>there on what one could do with the producer gas?
>
>Jeff Phillips
>Bridgewater, Mass.
>
Robert C. Brown
Iowa State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
2020 H. M. Black Bldg.
Ames, IA 50011
Tel: 515-294-8733
Fax: 515-294-3261
E-mail: rcbrown@iastate.edu
http://www.eng.iastate.edu/coe/me/homepage.html

From JonT at bblnorth.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 17 13:04:26 1997
From: JonT at bblnorth.demon.co.uk (Jonathan Taylor)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Power plant 100%Gaz
Message-ID: <c=GB%a=_%p=Border_Biofuels_%l=BBLNORTH-971217164058Z-246@bblnorth.demon.co.uk>

Dear Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris,

CONGRATULATIONS

My company is very interested in your gasifier technology and have some
short questions:

1. What is the downtime of the plant per year?
2. What is the total man hours of maintenance required per year?
3. Are there any consumables that need replacing, and if so,
approximately how often and at what cost? (For example, engine oil,
filters etc.)
4. Are there any by-products that need disposal (For example
contaminated water from gas clean up system)?

Regards,

Jonathan Taylor
Border Biofuels Limited
Tweed Horizons Centre for Sustainable Technology
Newtown St Boswells
Melrose
SCOTLAND

Phone 01835 823043
Fax 01835 822997
Email admin@bblnorth.demon.co.uk

>----------
>From: aptour@cyberscope.fr[SMTP:aptour@cyberscope.fr]
>Sent: 17 December 1997 00:30
>To: gasification@crest.org
>Subject: GAS-L: Power plant 100%Gaz
>
>Dear list members,
>
>after 30 years of research , we are able to present our units available
>with easy maintenance and operation , facility and simplicity .
>Worlwide units are running , (the oldiest is still running with 32000
>total time hours !)
>
>Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
>M.RE Research&Consult
>Licensed Equipment
>
>
>
>
>B1400
>Power range : 110-160 kW
>Rate output : 132-192 Kva
>specific consumption:
>1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
>-1 KW electric
>-2 KW thermics
> Option : exchanger to cogeneration
>Feedind system capacity(in liters) 1100
>
>B1400
>Power range : 160-300 kW
>Rate output : 200-375 Kva
>specific consumption:
>1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
>-1 KW electric
>-2 KW thermics
> Option : exchanger to cogeneration
>Feedind system capacity(in liters) 2000
>
>B2200
>Power range : 300-480 kW
>Rate output : 360-600 Kva
>specific consumption:
>1,3 KG wood at 20% humidity
>-1 KW electric
>-2 KW thermics
> Option : exchanger to cogeneration
>Feedind system capacity(in liters) :automatic feeding
>
>1)-Saving calculated in liters of liquid fuel from our biomass gaz
>generator Power Plant 100% gas wooden waste to produce electricity and
>terms type 200 kva
>
>1 year 1.020.000 kw electrics ) = 306.000 fuel liters
> ) 0,300 liter per Kwe
>10 years 10.200.000 kw electrics ) =3.060.000 fuel liters
>
>
>2)-Our biomass gaz generator included cogeneration in comparison with
>diesel generation
>
>1 year 1.400.000 kw thermics ) = 140.000 fuel liters
> ) 1 fuel liter per 10 kwt
>10 years 14.000.000 kw thermics ) = 1.400.000 fuel liters
>
>3)- Saving in fuel liters with our biomass gaz generator Utilization
>
>Total for 1 Year kw electric and thermic = 446.000 fuel liters
> 10 years kw electric and thermic = 4.460.000 fuel liters
>

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Dec 18 03:45:12 1997
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acetone from wood Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <3494BA01.3AEE@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <3496370E.3A49@merconet.com.br>

Anne and Dean Corson wrote:
>
> Hi everyone - One of the products of slow wood pyrolysis is liquid (tar
> plus pyroligneous acid) with a portion being acetone and acetic acid
> which can also be converted to acetone. What I have tried to find out
> from various other news groups (in vain) is the combustion engine fuel
> properties of acetone? Sorry if this is not quite the right place for
> such a question but I am desperate.
>
> Thanks
>
> Deano
Deano
As far as I know you'll find such small quantities of acetone in wood
pyrolisys tha it will not be economical to recover it. The acetic acid
conversion to acetone is an expensive process, uneconomical in the
overall.
Antonio

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Thu Dec 18 03:47:56 1997
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acetone from wood Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <199712162003_MC2-2C37-35B1@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <3498E34D.2DBB@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Tom & Everyone else - I have been working on a pyrolysis project,
designed to take almost any kind of organic feed stock and convert it
into gas/liquid products. The aim is to use waste material (manure,
municipal waste, garden watse, etc) to generate electricity, with any
excess heat to maintain biodigesters and dry feed stocks before
pyrolysis. The beauty of this system is that it is self sufficiant, does
not involve flame (combustion) or electrical heating, opperates between
450oC to 1000oC and can be built to just about any size. Finding a
commercial use for some of the products, as well as finding someone
interested in this type of work, is just another part of the puzzle.

Thanks for the reply

Deano

Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Deano:
>
> Acetone is very flamable, and being an oxygenate, may also have high
> octane. Since is much too valuable to use as a fuel, I am not sure anyone
> has more exact answers to your question.
>
> Wood pyrolysis only yields a % or 2% acetone (3-4% methanol from hardwoods,
> none from soft), so why do you ask?
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED

From md1301 at mclink.it Thu Dec 18 10:46:58 1997
From: md1301 at mclink.it (Icq srl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
Message-ID: <34994535.5F12@mclink.it>

replay to URANIO MAZZANTI
MD1301@mclink.it

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00019.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 25088 bytes
Desc: "maillist 2.doc"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/19971218/e582aa3b/doc00019.obj
From sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in Thu Dec 18 12:19:05 1997
From: sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in (Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.971218225133.21376A-100000@bom2.vsnl.net.in>

List Members,

We have lots of agricultural residues in India. More so in the Central
part of India. I work in the Department of Chemical Engineering,
Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur. In my Deptt., we have
pyrolysed several residues. We find that 1 Kilogramme of a typical residue
like pulse stalks yields about 450-500 gms of char (almost 90% carbon).
The economics show that the processing cost works out to about $5/GJ.

Dr. S.S. Bhagade

From arcate at email.msn.com Thu Dec 18 15:15:57 1997
From: arcate at email.msn.com (James R. Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:25 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: biomass charcoal
Message-ID: <07bb541182012c7UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com>

I am glad to see discussion of biomass charcoal.

I originally considered converting biomass to charcoal for use as a gasifier
feedstock. That would address the "biomass" transportation, storage and
gasifier feed system issues.

Another approach would be to use Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion
technology for biomass power generation by using charcoal from biomass
(rather than char from coal) as a feedstock for a PFBC. Charcoal would be
produced at "biomass refineries" (from wood waste, agricultural and forestry
residues, dedicated feedstocks, etc.) and transported to a large central
PFBC power plant. Please see http://www.sugarnet.com/biomass/ .

What do list members see as pros and cons of such a concept?

Jim Arcate

-----Original Message-----
From: SHGOLDT0@wcc.com <SHGOLDT0@wcc.com>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 2:18 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Re: charcoal production

> Hi,
>
> Jeff Phillip's concept of preprocessing biomass into charcoal, and
> separately using charcoal as a fuel, is a very helpful contribution to
> the evaluation of the economics of biomass conversion. It
> distinguishes the cost of biomass material processing from the revenue
> arising from the use of a fuel.
>
> Charcoal produced from biomass sources can potentially enter the
> market as a replacement for coal. The coal market has a well developed
> infrastructure and established price/quality/location relationships.
> On this basis it is relatively easy to value the charcoal produced
> from biomass in terms of $/GJ.
>
> The value of biomass charcoal may, in due course, be enhanced by
> carbon credits, tradable permits of other economic instruments which
> evolve from the recent negotiations in Kyoto on greenhouse gas
> emissions. Whatever, they will provide a mechanism for quantifying the
> environmental value in terms of the ubiquitous dollar.
>
> Therefore, the challenge for biomass process developers is to produce
> a processed fuel product at a $/GJ price which can compete in the
> conventional fuels market. This will be strongly dependent on scale.
> location and the positive or negative value of the biomass feed. If
> the co-production of high-value by-products from biomass can be
> achieved, that could be a major contributor to economic viability.
>
>
> Merry Christmas
>
>
>
> Steve Goldthorpe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
>Author: Goldthorpe <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz> at Internet
>Date: 12/17/97 7:14 AM
>
>
>>Return-Path: owner-gasification@crest.org
>>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:14:35 -0500
>>From: Jeff Phillips <MaryPhillips1@compuserve.com>
>>Subject: GAS-L: Re: FWD Sustainable alcohol production
>>To: "INTERNET:gasification@crest.org" <gasification@crest.org>
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by solstice.crest.org
>id MAA04589
>>Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
>>Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
>>
>>List Members,
>>
>>As I understand it, one of the drawbacks to larger-scale use of "waste"
>>biomass feeds (e.g., bagasse,stover, cobs, field trash, etc) is the high
>>cost of transporting the feeds to where they are to be used - especially
>>since one is in reality transporting a lot of water.
>>
>>One possibility would be to convert the biomass into charcoal using a lot
>>of small-scale gasifiers/pyrolyzers/reactors scattered about and then
>>transporting the charcoal to a central location where it is used to feed
an
>>Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (or for that matter a conventional
>>steam boiler).
>>
>>The use of a low-volatile, high carbon content feed into an IGCC has
>>already been proven (Texaco is using Pet. Coke to feed an IGCC at their
>>refinery in Kansas), and charcoal production from biomass has been around
>>for a long time.
>>
>>What do list members see as being the biggest risk factors or other
>>barriers to such a concept?
>>
>>Jeff Phillips
>>Bridgewater, Mass.
>>
>>
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Dec 18 17:24:58 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Bioenergy Lists on the Web
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19971218142708.00a7e8e4@mail.teleport.com>

Bioenergy List Participants,

Since we started the bioenergy lists we have been archiving list messages
on the web so that they contribute to the pool of online bioenergy
information. The web search engines periodically index the archives, so
that as the use of WWW searching increases we get more 'hits.'

Often people who access one of the list archive via the WWW post messages
to the list. The list administrators receive 2-6 "non-member" messages per
day. If they appear relevant list administrators will forward them to the
list. That is where many of the recent "forwards" from me and others come
from.

As a matter of policy I have been subscribing these individuals to the
lists before forwarding their messages, so that they will receive responses
and contribute to the discussion. In many cases they stay with us and their
contributions have been quite interesting.

The most accessed list - bioenergy - gets more than 1000 public hits
(requests or viewers) per day. The least - bioconversion - gets about 50.

Total requests for the last month are:

Bioenergy - 34,000 requests
Stoves - 14,600
Gasification - 6,500
Digestion - 3,800
Bioconversion - 1,500

BIOENERGY EMAIL LISTS

o Bioenergy (bioenergy@crest.org)
Moderator: Tom Miles (tmiles@teleport.com)
(Other Volunteers are Welcome!)
Archive:
<http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/>
Digest: bioenergy-digest@crest.org

o Gasification (gasification@crest.org)
Moderators: Thomas Reed <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
Estoban Chornet (Chornete@tcplink.nrel.gov)
Archive: <http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive>
Digest: gasification-digest@crest.org

o Anaerobic Digestion (digestion@crest.org)
Moderators: Phil Lusk (plusk@usa.pipeline.com)
Pat Wheeler (patrick.wheeler@aeat.co.uk)
Richard Nelson (rnelson@oz.oznet.ksu.edu)

Archive: <http://www.crest.org/renewables/digestion-list-archive>
Digest: digestion-digest@crest.org

o Stoves (stoves@crest.org)
Moderators: Ronal Larson(larcon@csn.net),

Archive: <http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/>
Digest: stoves-digest@crest.org

o Bioconversion (bioconversion@crest.org)
Moderators: Tom Jeffries <twjeffri@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Archive:
<http://www.crest.org/renewables/bioconversion-list-archive/>
Digest: bioconversion-digest@crest.org

Happy Holidays

Tom Miles

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com

1470 SW Woodward Way http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/
Portland, Oregon, USA 97225 Tel (503) 292-0107 Fax (503) 605-0208

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Thu Dec 18 18:04:21 1997
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199712181730_MC2-2C7E-B977@compuserve.com>

Dr Bhagade,

Your pyrolysis results are quite interesting, and char production costs of
$5/GJ should certainly be competitive with other fossil fuels in
significant areas of the world (for example, I believe liquified natural
gas costs about $5/GJ to deliver to a power plant customer when all
infrastructure costs are taken into account).

I assume the yields you quoted of 450-500g/kg are on a dry feed basis - in
other words, 1 kg of feed on a dry basis yields 450-500 g of char.

Have you published any of your results - where can we find out more?

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Thu Dec 18 20:45:40 1997
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <199712181730_MC2-2C7E-B977@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.971219083714.2202B-100000@alphaserv.ait.ac.th>

Dr. Bhagade's pyrolysis results are interesting. But here are a few words
of caution.

i) The reported yield (if on dry basis) is too high. In general for
biomass in small sizes the charcoal yield is less than large-sized
biomass, for example, wood logs. (This is mainly due to less chance of gas
phase secondary reaction taking place inside the pyrolysing solid as well
as faster heating rates in case of small aprticles.) I would expect an
yield well below 30% for small biomass in field condition.

ii) Prof. Antal's carbonization technique is different from conventional
charcoal making. It involves carbonization under moderate pressure.
He has found yields exceeding 60% in some cases. As far as I know, there
is basically no commercial plant yet based on this approach.

S.C. Bhattacharya

-------------------------------------------------------------------
S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
Professor 524 5913 (Res)
Energy Program
Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
PO Box 4, Klong Luang 516 2126
Pathumthani 12120
Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in Fri Dec 19 07:16:04 1997
From: sbhagade at bom2.vsnl.net.in (Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <199712181730_MC2-2C7E-B977@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.971219174238.16042B-100000@bom2.vsnl.net.in>

Dear Jeff,

The proximate analysis of the pulse stalks is
Moisture 10.0%
Ash 2.5%
Volatile matter 32.0%
Fixed carbon 55.5%

This is a field dried material. On pyrolysis we get a gas with a low
calorific value of about 6.6 KJ/lit. The liquid product is mostly water
but some high phenolics are also present. We have reacted the liquid
product from pyrolysis of cotton stalks with formaldehyde to get a PF like
resin which has good electrical propoerties. If we use all the products of
pyrolysis - gas, liquid and char (the first locally and the other two at
some central place) the project is economically viable.

S.S. Bhagade

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Jeff Phillips wrote:

> Dr Bhagade,
>
> Your pyrolysis results are quite interesting, and char production costs of
> $5/GJ should certainly be competitive with other fossil fuels in
> significant areas of the world (for example, I believe liquified natural
> gas costs about $5/GJ to deliver to a power plant customer when all
> infrastructure costs are taken into account).
>
> I assume the yields you quoted of 450-500g/kg are on a dry feed basis - in
> other words, 1 kg of feed on a dry basis yields 450-500 g of char.
>
> Have you published any of your results - where can we find out more?
>
> Jeff Phillips
> Bridgewater, Mass.
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Dec 19 10:24:36 1997
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
In-Reply-To: <34994535.5F12@mclink.it>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971219071415.0097baa0@mail.teleport.com>

Here's Uranio Mazzanti's attachment for those who couldn't read it.
Dear list members

I've just joined today this mailing list!

I did some experience in running small scale pilot gasifiers and engines in
the period from 1987 to 1991 so I have missed six years of information on
the commercial state of this technology.

My company is developing many initiatives in Italy for the production of
electricity from biomasses and have in program the realization of a power
plant of 4 kWe gross (3,4 net) to be fueled mainly with "sansa" - spent
olive husk (after solvent extraction of the oil) - with some wood residues.

We expect to start the plant in summer 1999 and it is "thought" at present
on the traditional steam/turbine technology. Traditional but not totally
safe depending on the bad characteristics of the specific fuel (small size
of fuel, low melting point of the ashes, etc.).

The plant is expected to run for at least 8 years at 7000-7500 h/y, to
supply electricity in the national net.

I would be pleased, to suggest to my associates a cheaper but reliable
alternative with gasification and engines.

Has anybody some suggestions, I would be very pleased to hear from him.

Thanking everybody in advance and hoping to hear from you, our Company
wishes to you all a Merry Christmas and the Happiest of New Year!

At 04:45 PM 12/18/97 +0100, you wrote:
>replay to URANIO MAZZANTI
>MD1301@mclink.it
>
>Attachment Converted: "C:\EUDORA\maillist 2.doc"
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Miles tmiles@teleport.com
T.R. Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
Portland, Oregon, USA Tel:(503) 646-1198/292-0107
http://www.teleport.com/~tmiles/ Fax:(503) 605-0208/292-2919

From majordomo at tradinghouse.com Fri Dec 19 11:01:51 1997
From: majordomo at tradinghouse.com (Global-Marketplace-Digest)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: [Global-Marketplace] Free Subscription
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971217201240.00a234bc@tradinghouse.com>

Global-marketplace-digest is pleased to invite you
to join a genuine emagazine for fresh trade inquiries
worldwide from over 130 countries.

Our subscribers are very serious business executives
involved in all sectors of trade and industry
and look forward to get new business opportunties
through our digest sent by email.
We monitor it very regularly and try hard to keep
it open only for genuine businesses.

If you are interested to subscribe you only
have to send a new email message
mailto:majordomo@tradinghouse.com

Just write : subscribe global-marketplace-digest

(DO NOT write anything else in subject or content area).

If you are not sure if you wish to subscribe but want to
know more details and a brief report on how to write
a good trade offer/demand please write a message and
mailto:majordomo@tradinghouse.com

ONLY WRITE: info global-marketplace-digest

Upon your message, you will receive a reply and confirmation
and introduction to the digest with instructions on
how to participate.

If you do not wish to further receive any messages
pls send a message to : nomail@tradinghouse.com

We wish you a happy and prosperous new year if we
dont hear from you.
We apologize for any incovenience this mail may cause
but if you are not interested please delete it.

But we write you thinking you may benefit from this offer.
Take care and wish you the best
Global-Marketplace-digest

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Fri Dec 19 19:38:58 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971219071415.0097baa0@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <349A9BE1.184D@ix.netcom.com>

Uranio -

This small power unit concept is one which I have also been interested
in pursuing; however, I have run into the same difficulty in defining a
suitable prime mover. For some time I had been optimistic that a
stirling engine would finally make its way through the commercialization
challenges, but my understanding is that once again the technical
hurdles seem to be too high. Even Cummins has sold its interests in the
stirling technology. I look forward to answers to your inquiry.

Jane Turnbull

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Fri Dec 19 20:31:24 1997
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.971219174238.16042B-100000@bom2.vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <349AF2B2.4B91@xtra.co.nz>

Dear Dr S.S. Bhagade,

Just a point you might be interested in, though may not be applicable
to your end products. I have done a lot of literature research on
finding ways to use all products from cellulose based pyrolysis, the tar
residue in some cases contain a products called levoglucosan and
levoglucosenone which on hydrolysis produces glucose, need I say more.>
Some research has been centered on optimising tar production for this
purpose with tar yeilds as high as 64% of the total cellulose content.
Like I said before, just thought I would mention it. If you want a
refference let me know.

Deano

Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur) wrote:
Dear Jeff,
>
> The proximate analysis of the pulse stalks is
> Moisture 10.0%
> Ash 2.5%
> Volatile matter 32.0%
> Fixed carbon 55.5%
>
> This is a field dried material. On pyrolysis we get a gas with a low
> calorific value of about 6.6 KJ/lit. The liquid product is mostly water
> but some high phenolics are also present. We have reacted the liquid
> product from pyrolysis of cotton stalks with formaldehyde to get a PF like
> resin which has good electrical propoerties. If we use all the products of
> pyrolysis - gas, liquid and char (the first locally and the other two at
> some central place) the project is economically viable.
>
>
> S.S. Bhagade
>
>

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Fri Dec 19 21:25:39 1997
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
Message-ID: <199712200230.UAA19020@ns1.corpcomm.net>

Jane -

I've done a lot of "looking at" this kind of concept, and am convinced
that the saleable system is any of several combinations of low-Btu
gasifiers feeding conventional diesel engines, of all sizes, running in
their dual-fuel mode, substituting the gas for around 90% of their
conventional diesel fuel. This offers one tremendous advantage over any
kind of gas-only engine: When the gasifier feed doesn't get delivered, or
the gasifier breaks down or blows up, the engine-generator can still run -
albiet expensively - on diesel fuel through the emergency. I understand
there are 300+ such units running in villages in India, made by an Indian
company, who also ghas a Swiss licensee. But I haven't been able to raise
vital signs from them.

Merry X-mas Bill Hauserman
Grand Forks, ND

----------
> From: Jane H. Turnbull <jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: suggestions' request
> Date: Friday, December 19, 1997 10:08 AM
>
> Uranio -
>
> This small power unit concept is one which I have also been interested
> in pursuing; however, I have run into the same difficulty in defining a
> suitable prime mover. For some time I had been optimistic that a
> stirling engine would finally make its way through the commercialization
> challenges, but my understanding is that once again the technical
> hurdles seem to be too high. Even Cummins has sold its interests in the
> stirling technology. I look forward to answers to your inquiry.
>
> Jane Turnbull
>
>

From npandit at osf1.gmu.edu Fri Dec 19 21:46:25 1997
From: npandit at osf1.gmu.edu (NITIN PANDIT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <349AF2B2.4B91@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.971219215026.8242A-100000@mason2.gmu.edu>

Can you post the reference on the list please?

Nitin

On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Anne and Dean Corson wrote:

> Dear Dr S.S. Bhagade,
>
> Just a point you might be interested in, though may not be applicable
> to your end products. I have done a lot of literature research on
> finding ways to use all products from cellulose based pyrolysis, the tar
> residue in some cases contain a products called levoglucosan and
> levoglucosenone which on hydrolysis produces glucose, need I say more.>
> Some research has been centered on optimising tar production for this
> purpose with tar yeilds as high as 64% of the total cellulose content.
> Like I said before, just thought I would mention it. If you want a
> refference let me know.
>
> Deano
>
>
>
> Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur) wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
> >
> > The proximate analysis of the pulse stalks is
> > Moisture 10.0%
> > Ash 2.5%
> > Volatile matter 32.0%
> > Fixed carbon 55.5%
> >
> > This is a field dried material. On pyrolysis we get a gas with a low
> > calorific value of about 6.6 KJ/lit. The liquid product is mostly water
> > but some high phenolics are also present. We have reacted the liquid
> > product from pyrolysis of cotton stalks with formaldehyde to get a PF like
> > resin which has good electrical propoerties. If we use all the products of
> > pyrolysis - gas, liquid and char (the first locally and the other two at
> > some central place) the project is economically viable.
> >
> >
> > S.S. Bhagade
> >
> >
>
>
>

****************************************************************************

Nitin Pandit
Tel: (703) 263-0689 3867 Zelkova Court
Fax: (703) 263-0953 Fairfax, VA 22033
Net: npandit@gmu.edu USA

****************************************************************************

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Sat Dec 20 02:35:26 1997
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.971219215026.8242A-100000@mason2.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <349B4264.5098@xtra.co.nz>

Reference as Requested: WOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES
Research on Use for Feed, Fuels, and Chemicals

Edited by: Ed J. Soles, Dept. of Forest Sci.
Texas A&M University

Academic Press, Inc. 1983

NITIN PANDIT wrote:
>
> Can you post the reference on the list please?
>
> Nitin
>
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Anne and Dean Corson wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr S.S. Bhagade,
> >
> > Just a point you might be interested in, though may not be applicable
> > to your end products. I have done a lot of literature research on
> > finding ways to use all products from cellulose based pyrolysis, the tar
> > residue in some cases contain a products called levoglucosan and
> > levoglucosenone which on hydrolysis produces glucose, need I say more.>
> > Some research has been centered on optimising tar production for this
> > purpose with tar yeilds as high as 64% of the total cellulose content.
> > Like I said before, just thought I would mention it. If you want a
> > refference let me know.
> >
> > Deano
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Sudheer S. Bhagade (Nagpur) wrote:
> > Dear Jeff,
> > >
> > > The proximate analysis of the pulse stalks is
> > > Moisture 10.0%
> > > Ash 2.5%
> > > Volatile matter 32.0%
> > > Fixed carbon 55.5%
> > >
> > > This is a field dried material. On pyrolysis we get a gas with a low
> > > calorific value of about 6.6 KJ/lit. The liquid product is mostly water
> > > but some high phenolics are also present. We have reacted the liquid
> > > product from pyrolysis of cotton stalks with formaldehyde to get a PF like
> > > resin which has good electrical propoerties. If we use all the products of
> > > pyrolysis - gas, liquid and char (the first locally and the other two at
> > > some central place) the project is economically viable.
> > >
> > >
> > > S.S. Bhagade
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Nitin Pandit
> Tel: (703) 263-0689 3867 Zelkova Court
> Fax: (703) 263-0953 Fairfax, VA 22033
> Net: npandit@gmu.edu USA
>
> ****************************************************************************

From izhar at khi.compol.com Sat Dec 20 05:50:03 1997
From: izhar at khi.compol.com (Zubair Ahmed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: uasb
Message-ID: <01BD0D5F.5657F0E0@pm1user24.compol.com>

hello

i am student doing project of treatment of tannery wastewater using anaerobically. could you please telme where i can get relevant data, information

thanks
zubair

From bentermm at convertech.co.nz Sun Dec 21 14:25:36 1997
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
Message-ID: <v01540b00b0c3c63cdbea@[202.37.189.47]>

Re small power unit concept:

Here in New Zealand, Whisper Tech is developing stirling engines successfully.

http://www.southpower.co.nz/whisp.htm

Regards
Markus Benter

--------------------

>Uranio -
>
>This small power unit concept is one which I have also been interested
>in pursuing; however, I have run into the same difficulty in defining a
>suitable prime mover. For some time I had been optimistic that a
>stirling engine would finally make its way through the commercialization
>challenges, but my understanding is that once again the technical
>hurdles seem to be too high. Even Cummins has sold its interests in the
>stirling technology. I look forward to answers to your inquiry.
>
>Jane Turnbull

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Markus M Benter
Energy and Process Engineer
Scott Convertech Ltd
PO Box 13 776
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND

e-mail: bentermm@convertech.co.nz
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 22 12:34:38 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
In-Reply-To: <199712200230.UAA19020@ns1.corpcomm.net>
Message-ID: <349E35FA.49BA@ix.netcom.com>

Bill -

I haven't found any commercial heavy duty engines smaller than 40 kW.
In fact, after a quick general survey, a 75-85 kW Caterpillar seems to
be the only one to make economic sense at all. I was interested in the
stirling engines because they could have promise in a 4 to 10 kW range.

Dual-fuel solutions don't make it in those countries which subsidize
diesel for political reasons - and there are a considerable number of
those. I have been told that the Indian government supported
development and sales of biomass gasifiers with engines, but once they
reached the market, the gasifiers were relegated to the backburner, and
diesel was used exclusively.

Jane

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 22 13:56:30 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00b0c3c63cdbea@[202.37.189.47]>
Message-ID: <349E4958.30E9@ix.netcom.com>

Markus -

That Mhisper Tech engine looks neat! Do they have cost and performance
information available?

Jane

From bentermm at convertech.co.nz Mon Dec 22 15:40:07 1997
From: bentermm at convertech.co.nz (Markus M Benter)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Stirling Engine
Message-ID: <v01540b02b0c52a42165d@[202.37.189.122]>

Dear Jane,

I am sure they have that kind of information available. I suggest you try
to contact them directly. If you have trouble, please let me know and I
will be happy to try to obtain some infos for you.

Regards
Markus

-----------

>Markus -
>
>That Mhisper Tech engine looks neat! Do they have cost and performance
>information available?
>
>Jane

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Markus M Benter
Energy and Process Engineer
Scott Convertech Ltd
PO Box 13 776
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND

e-mail: bentermm@convertech.co.nz
www: http://www.southpower.co.nz/conver.htm

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Dec 23 02:36:52 1997
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <7bc790c2.349f6b08@aol.com>

I'd like to build a small scale MSW gasifier for use with internal combustion
engines. Rather than shred the MSW (as I've seen in other designs) I'd like
to find a way to pass whole non-combustibles through the system.

Since the trash is mostly bagged, I assume that downdraft will not work since
the plastic bags interfere with the downflow of air. Therefore I suppose the
best solution would be some type of modified cross-draft system with the air
inlet some distance above the side grate/gas outlet.

Suppose the fire tube is long, with the side grate being about half way
between the top and bottom of the tube. The top portion of the firetube forms
a plug of trash, which would prevent the escape of gas (and also unfortunately
prevent the downdraft of air). Therefore air inlets would have to be along
the side of the firetube (crossdraft).

The bottom portion of the fire tube extends into an ash bin, which is not air
tight so it is serviceable while in operation. The ash bin is open on one end
with an auger to remove ash.

After the waste is combusted, the ash and non-combustibles proceed down the
fire tube, acting as a plug to prevent air from coming up the tube from the
ash bin.

I'm thinking that the dimensions of the fire tube might be 20" O.D., 6' tall
with a 3/8" wall. The gas exhaust opening/grate would be 2" high and would be
the length of 1/2 the circumference of the firetube. I'm guessing about 4' of
firetube would be above the grate and 2' of firetube below the grate, emptying
into a 20"h x 20"w x 36"l ash box.

The trash will be mostly uncompacted and many (but not all) non-combustables
will be removed. I'd like to be able to gasify between 500 and 1000 lbs per
hour.

Would a system like this work?

If so:

1) How far below the grate/gas outlet would the firetube have to extend in
order to prevent air updraft through the ash to significantly deteriorate the
quality of gas?
2) How high above the exhaust grate should the air inlet(s) be?
3) Should I consider several air inlets at various heights in case others get
blocked?
4) With a side grate, will light metal items like aluminum foil or aluminum
trays get sucked up against the exhaust grate and prevent gas flow? If so,
how can this problem be resolved?
5) Any other considerations or construction methods useful for handling MSW?

Any and all help would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Vernon Harris
vernon_harris@bigfoot.com

From Martina.Fischer at str.daimler-benz.com Tue Dec 23 07:27:08 1997
From: Martina.Fischer at str.daimler-benz.com (Fischer, Martina)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Inquiry for information about methanol production from biomass
Message-ID: <C1CD000160F4D0118F650004AC621A560312E1@SUTGXS50>

Dear Sirs,

I am studying environmental engineering at the university of Stuttgart,
Germany. In the moment I am doing my dissertation which submitted for
the diploma. For this I am doing some research on comparing different
processes of producing methanol from biomass or from renewable sources
at the Daimler-Benz AG.
For me it would be very interesting, if there are already different
pilot plants for producing biomethanol.
I would like to know if there are more details about the production
process, the energy conversion efficiency, the quantity efficiency, the
turnover for a plant, the emissions which are produced during the
process. Maybe there are different publications and reports from
differents studies.
I would appreciate it, if you could send me more information about the
possibility of producing methanol from biomass and maybe name me a
contact, I could get in touch with.
I look forward to hearing from you soo and thank you for all your help
in advance.
Beyond that I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Good New Year.

Yours sincerely,
Martina Fischer

e-mail: Martina.Fischer@str.daimler-benz.com

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Tue Dec 23 10:17:38 1997
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
In-Reply-To: <7bc790c2.349f6b08@aol.com>
Message-ID: <349F2EE5.FCCBC76E@roanoke.infi.net>

VHarris001 wrote:

> I'd like to build a small scale MSW gasifier for use with internal combustion
> engines. Rather than shred the MSW (as I've seen in other designs) I'd like
> to find a way to pass whole non-combustibles through the system.
>
> Since the trash is mostly bagged, I assume that downdraft will not work since
> the plastic bags interfere with the downflow of air. Therefore I suppose the
> best solution would be some type of modified cross-draft system with the air
> inlet some distance above the side grate/gas outlet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Vernon Harris
> vernon_harris@bigfoot.com

tvoivozhd>>>You've got a lot of complications involved in moving unbreached bags
through the system, and I think a cross-flow to compensate for intact bags is a
lot more
expensive (and a loss of efficiency?) than a hopper-mounted simple bag-slitter or
rotary cylinder witn knives (spring-loaded if there's a lot of hard objects
inside).

From gschaefer at conceptseti.com Tue Dec 23 15:31:09 1997
From: gschaefer at conceptseti.com (George Schaefer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: CraTech
Message-ID: <34A04AD8.4E0B@conceptseti.com>

Joe Craig can be reached at 806 327 5220

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Dec 23 18:48:41 1997
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <926217a8.34a04e8b@aol.com>

>tvoivozhd>>>You've got a lot of complications involved in moving unbreached
bags
>through the system, and I think a cross-flow to compensate for intact bags is
a
>lot more
>expensive (and a loss of efficiency?) than a hopper-mounted simple bag-
slitter or
>rotary cylinder witn knives (spring-loaded if there's a lot of hard objects
>inside).

If the bags were slit would that be sufficient to allow for downdraft
gasification or would the bags also need to be emptied (i.e. a debagger)?
Does the MSW require shredding even if debagged? If so, why?

In downdraft/cross-draft gasifier theory, the drying and distillation zones
lie above the hearth zone. Would either of these zones be sufficiently hot to
melt the plastic bags so they no longer significantly restricted the flow of
air as they approaced the air inlet ports?

Vernon

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Tue Dec 23 21:06:56 1997
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
In-Reply-To: <926217a8.34a04e8b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <349FC712.3BD06EC6@roanoke.infi.net>

VHarris001 wrote:

> >tvoivozhd>>>You've got a lot of complications involved in moving unbreached
> bags
> >through the system, and I think a cross-flow to compensate for intact bags is
> a
> >lot more
> >expensive (and a loss of efficiency?) than a hopper-mounted simple bag-
> slitter or
> >rotary cylinder witn knives (spring-loaded if there's a lot of hard objects
> >inside).
>
> If the bags were slit would that be sufficient to allow for downdraft
> gasification

I think (not a good substitute for test) that slitting would be sufficient, though
a rotary cylinder with knives (or aggressive teeth) would do better, particularly
if the bag contents were compacted.
A rotary cylinder in the hopper above a fuel-storage chamber should do as well as
a separate debagger and avoid rehandling.

> or would the bags also need to be emptied (i.e. a debagger)?
> Does the MSW require shredding even if debagged? If so, why?
>
> In downdraft/cross-draft gasifier theory, the drying and distillation zones
> lie above the hearth zone. Would either of these zones be sufficiently hot to
> melt the plastic bags so they no longer significantly restricted the flow of
> air as they approaced the air inlet ports?

tvoivozhd>>>I can't claim specific experience with bagged material, and no
knowledge of what type or thickness of plastic might be in use. If it were common
two or three mm polyethylene as used in household garbage bags I would expect the
bottom part of the bag to be reduced to blobs and strings at about 150 C, and
offer no resistance to air flow. The contents of the bag might delay the
degradation of the top of the bag---to what extent and how long I do not know, but
if it is too much and too long, it might be sufficient to just slice open the top
of the bag (or abrade the sides)----again assuming the bag contents were not
compacted enough to choke off air flow through it.

Sorry I can't be more helpful---too much depends on the character of your
feedstock.
If it is not too tightly compressed I think you could get by with abrading the bag
periphery---and not necessarily all of that. If it were very tightly compressed,
I'd mount a rotary chipper-shredder in the hopper bottom above the fuel-storage
chamber and let it chew through everything and discharge it below (and auger it up
into your downdraft chamber for continuous feed?)

. I designed a two-stage reduction (hog first-stage) twenty years ago to regrind
polycarbonate, but that's too elaborate for your small gasifier. Look at some of
the garden-supply houses and lawn-equipment dealers for a small chipper-shredder
you could use as an add-on. The ones with swinging hammers have less of a
tendency to clog with irreducible solids, and use less horsepower. Very small
ones are available with electric motors, and larger ones (5 hp and up) are
gasoline-engine driven.

I made a continuous-feed downdraft gasifier back about 1972? to power a pickup
truck when it was not evident when the Arab oil-embargo would end. It had an
inclined (about 40 degrees) cylinder and 12-volt motor powered auger as a
firebox. The fire was ignited when necessary by piezo-spark and producer gas
torch fed from a small tank with a l2-volt compressor. The auger picked up wood
chips from the bottom where it entered a closed-top wood-chip storage hopper. The
fireface was held at the auger top by two heat sensors which controlled auger
speed. (ashes dumped out the auger-top) The auger flights were perforated, with
(unnecessary) catalytic plates imbedded in some of the holes, and (also
unnecessary) was designed to use a water vapor injector. The producer gas
travelled down the auger flights, and up through the wood-chip hopper where the
chips acted as a pre-filter before the gas went through a centrifuge and water
spray, a demister, and into a final dryer and filter before going to a dual-fuel
carburetor. It had a woodgas-fueled (hard-to-start) small five hp chipper in the
space below the inclined auger and cylinder--fueled by the same woodgas tank as
the ignitor, and adjacent to an ash storage compartment. The inclusion of the
onboard chipper was to make it possible to travel and use tree limbs etc. gleaned
enroute. It worked pretty good---didn't run any tests for efficiency, but it
burned about a pound of dry hardwood chips per mile and the pickup (454 cu. in.)
had plenty of power, though less than on gasoline.. It was one of the things I
couldn't move when I retired.

Incidentally, a design for two dual-fuel carburetors (if you can find it), is
shown on page 138, Issue No. 79, January/February 1983 of Mother Earth News.

>
>
> Vernon

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 08:41:23 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
Message-ID: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12BD@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jane, Ralph O et al:

A letter from Harry Parker condemning small power to "never economic" and
some of your replies offers an opportunity to discuss the "Small Power"
alternative.

Many countries (with help from World Bank and World Consciousness) are
moving toward MegaPower solutions, and Harry's comments certainly supports
that position.

However, if small turbine and Stirling engines become available soon enough
they could change that path; if not, not. To what extent are gas turbines
< 1 MW practical? When will free piston and other Stirling engines be
ready to "compete"? There are plenty of incentives for the manufactures to
solve the miniaturization problems.

There are still 3 billion (?) people/customers ready for small power who
will otherwise have to wait 10-20 years for megapower.

Prognostications?

TOM REED

~~~~~

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 04:15:04 -0600
From: "Harry W. Parker" <MIHWP@ttacs1.ttu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ethanol is the best renewable transp
To: "M.A. Hynes" <mahynes@netins.net>
Cc: "Desai, Nikhil VA01" <ndesai@icfkaiser.com>,
bioenergy <bioenergy@crest.org>
Reply-to: MIHWP@ttacs1.ttu.edu
Organization: Texas Tech University

Good morning all,

I am replying to the following quote from Ed Woolsey

>"Now, if we can figure out a way for small generators to get a piece of
the pie.

>Ed Woolsey"

The vast economies of large-scale production will always eliminate the
small producer. Remember in the late '70's when on-farm ethanol
production was being advocated? Now look at the size of the ethanol
plants and the companies that make most of the profits from ethanol
production. It is not the individual farmer!

The same concept applies to electricity production.

Harry

~~~~
There are two counter-aguements to Harry Parker's response to Ed
Woolsey's point about small scale electricity production.

First, the predominant regulatory system we have does not adequately
credit the value small size generation has for electric distribution.
If this quality were adequately included in the way electricity
producers got paid, it would reduce or eliminate the scale economy
advantage. Fortunately, distributed utility planning is gaining
stature in many states, so keep track of this development and see how
it changes the prospects for smaller-scale generation.

Second, there may be a public policy reason to encourage small
producers, especially if they are using a feedstock which furthers
some public purpose, or if the producer itself is predominantly a
business which furthers a public purpose. If there is an externality
which government (including the elected represetatives of the people)
chooses to factor into prices, that is good, and it isn't a subsidy.

Finally, I think that when wholesale generation is really working in
a competitive way, we all may be surprised at how resources come to
the market. I do know that when just the utilities are doing the
picking, there is a homogenization to the process, and I think with
more people picking and renewable portfolio standards in some states,
the mix will change.

Richard Sedano
Vermont Department of Public Service
~~~~

I've done a lot of "looking at" this kind of concept, and am
convinced
that the saleable system is any of several combinations of low-Btu
gasifiers feeding conventional diesel engines, of all sizes, running in
their dual-fuel mode, substituting the gas for around 90% of their
conventional diesel fuel. This offers one tremendous advantage over any
kind of gas-only engine: When the gasifier feed doesn't get delivered, or
the gasifier breaks down or blows up, the engine-generator can still run -
albiet expensively - on diesel fuel through the emergency. I understand
there are 300+ such units running in villages in India, made by an Indian
company, who also ghas a Swiss licensee. But I haven't been able to raise
vital signs from them.

Merry X-mas Bill Hauserman
Grand Forks, ND
----------

> From: Jane H. Turnbull <jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: suggestions' request
> Date: Friday, December 19, 1997 10:08 AM
>
> Uranio -
>
> This small power unit concept is one which I have also been interested
> in pursuing; however, I have run into the same difficulty in defining a
> suitable prime mover. For some time I had been optimistic that a
> stirling engine would finally make its way through the commercialization
> challenges, but my understanding is that once again the technical
> hurdles seem to be too high. Even Cummins has sold its interests in the
> stirling technology. I look forward to answers to your inquiry.
>
> Jane Turnbull

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 08:41:29 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Acetone from wood Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12C8@compuserve.com>

Dear Deano:

I like your enthusiasm. However, those who do not study history are doomed
to repeat it. There are many good books on biomass pyrolysis in the
library, mostly written before 1950 (when oil began to dominate the
chemical market). Try Goos, A. W., "The Thermal Decomposition of Wood",
Chapter 20 in Wood Chemistry, 2nd Ed., Rheinhold, 1952.

Good luck and good studying, TOM REED
> Hi Tom & Everyone else - I have been working on a pyrolysis project,
> designed to take almost any kind of organic feed stock and convert it
> into gas/liquid products. The aim is to use waste material (manure,
> municipal waste, garden watse, etc) to generate electricity, with any
> excess heat to maintain biodigesters and dry feed stocks before
> pyrolysis. The beauty of this system is that it is self sufficiant, does
> not involve flame (combustion) or electrical heating, opperates between
> 450oC to 1000oC and can be built to just about any size. Finding a
> commercial use for some of the products, as well as finding someone
> interested in this type of work, is just another part of the puzzle.
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
> Deano
>
>
> Thomas Reed wrote:
> >
> > Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> > Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Dear Deano:
> >
> > Acetone is very flamable, and being an oxygenate, may also have high
> > octane. Since is much too valuable to use as a fuel, I am not sure
anyone
> > has more exact answers to your question.
> >
> > Wood pyrolysis only yields a % or 2% acetone (3-4% methanol from
hardwoods,
> > none from soft), so why do you ask?
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED
>
>
Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

essage text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
> Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Deano:
>
> Acetone is very flamable, and being an oxygenate, may also have high
> octane. Since is much too valuable to use as a fuel, I am not sure
anyone
> has more exact answers to your question.
>
> Wood pyrolysis only yields a % or 2% acetone (3-4% methanol from
hardwoods,
> none from soft), so why do you ask?
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 08:41:33 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis
Message-ID: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12C7@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Bhagade:

See Bhattacharya and my comments on your "too high" yields. The carbon
content of biomass seldom exceeds 50% so higher yields indicate incomplete
pyrolysis.

But we are interested in Pulse Pyrolysis, so want to know more.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 08:41:44 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Charcoal or Pyrolysis?
Message-ID: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12C5@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Bhatta, Miles et al:

I applaud Bhattacharya's weighing in on charcoal/pyrolysis. He is an "old
timer" in this field and so has the perspective to add the remarks (below)
that many don't have. (However, I have never heard Mike Antal claim a 60%
yield. 45, maybe 50%.)

I agree that small charcoal at atmospheric pressure, field conditions
generally produces 20% charcoal (dry basis, DB), while the top down stoves
produce typically 25%, field conditions. These numbers will be vague and
anecdotal unless one were to add the volatiles remaining, iodine number,
BET surface or other measure of DEGREE OF PYROLYSIS. Still, they are
better than nothing.

Also I have proposed that typical conditions for primary charcoal (cooking
charcoal) making are to some extent self regulating, since above 275C the
mass becomes self heating and carries naturally to about 440 C without
external heat. Thus many different processes could produce the same yield.

~~~~
It is not INappropriate for the charcoal discussion to appear on the
GASIFICATION node, since gasification involves pyrolysis. However, our
motives are to NOT produce charcoal, but convert it to gas, so the
discussion is here in a negative sense.

Also, occasionally misguided enthusiasts wish to use charcoal gasifiers for
engines. They are easier to make (less tar) but wildly wasteful of the
energy in the biomass, since charcoal yields seldom exceed 30% even in
commercial (non-Antal) charcoal production.
In the same way it is on the STOVE node in a negative sense. To the extent
that a stove produces charcoal, it doesn't produce heat. Ron Larson
(moderator) sees charcoal production as a positive feature of the inverted
downdraft (top burning, charcoal producing) stove, since charcoal is much
in demand in Africa and other less developed countries. However, it is in
demand for cooking and if the biomass stoves are good enough, they wouldn't
need charcoal, so we agree to disagree on that point.

Most of the charcoal threads so far have been in STOVES. Now they are in
GASIFICATION. Any new visitor could get confused.
~~~~
Tom Miles: Is there enough interest so that we have a CHARCOAL node at
CREST?

MIKE ANTAL: Would you be willing to master a Charcoal node if one forms?
What is your top yield of REAL charcoal? (NOTE: I can't find Antal's
address - would someone forward this to him and send me his address?)

Danny Day: Better get in on this discussion site, wherever it winds up.

Comments? TOM REED
~~~~
Bhattacharya says:

Dr. Bhagade's pyrolysis results are interesting. But here are a few words
of caution.

i) The reported yield (if on dry basis) is too high. In general for
Biomass in small sizes the charcoal yield is less than large-sized
biomass, for example, wood logs. (This is mainly due to less chance of gas
phase secondary reaction taking place inside the pyrolysing solid as well
as faster heating rates in case of small aprticles.) I would expect an
yield well below 30% for small biomass in field condition.

S.C. Bhattacharya

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 09:00:01 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: biomass charcoal
Message-ID: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12C6@compuserve.com>

Me too, and see my posting today as to whether CREST should host a separate
charcoal node.

>I originally considered converting biomass to charcoal for use as a
gasifier
feedstock. That would address the "biomass" transportation, storage and
gasifier feed system issues.

Since only 40% of the energy of the biomass winds up in the charcoal (and
typically 100% of the tar/volatiles wind up in the atmosphere in primative
charcoal mfgr), not a good idea. Sweden used charcoal gasisfiers 1939-40,
but then switched to wood gasifiers for the rest of the war.

>Another approach would be to use Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion
technology for biomass power generation by using charcoal from biomass
(rather than char from coal) as a feedstock for a PFBC. Charcoal would be
produced at "biomass refineries" (from wood waste, agricultural and
forestry
residues, dedicated feedstocks, etc.) and transported to a large central
PFBC power plant. Please see http://www.sugarnet.com/biomass/ .

Same deal: Gasify the wood/charcoal/volatiles.

>What do list members see as pros and cons of such a concept?

>Jim Arcate

Thanks for your question, Jim - TOM REED (Moderator)

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 20:19:06 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: liquid phase methanol
Message-ID: <199712282023_MC2-2D5A-76C1@compuserve.com>

Date: 12/22/97 10:36 PM

RE: liquid phase methanol

Dear GASNET:

Here is an inquiry about liquid phase methanol production from my old friend
Ed Lipinsky at Battelle?

If anyone knows anything recent, I hope they will also post it on this node.

I append my answer to ED.
~~~~

From: Ed Lipinsky <edlipinsk@sprynet.com>
To: "Tom Reed" <REEDTB@compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Dear Tom,

As part of the DOE project that I am doing, methanol needs to be compared
with ethanol.The liquid phase process for making methanol from coal is
said to be outstanding in its efficiency and low cost. Could you provide
me with information on the state of the art in using this technology for
making methanol from biomass (e.g., a recent reference or person to call?

Right now, I am not in your gasification internet conference, only in the
bioenergy one. If necssary, could you pose the question to the group. It
probably isn't necessary , since you probably are tracking this one.

I seem to remember that the EPRI Coolwater methanol demo used a
once-through process which would fit well with my project focus on gas
turbines.

Thanks for any light that you can shed!

~~~~
Dear Ed:

I do remember that liquid phase methanol was touted as much superior
a decade ago, but I haven't heard much since then. Sorry. I am also currently interested in methanol from the Dow/Union Carbide type catalyst. Know anything about that one?

I will post your note to our members. None has shown an interest in
Methanol so far, but we have a lot of lurkers.

I believe that "once through" methanol is technically very attractive
and will ultimately be practiced in a decade or so when the power
companies realize they can get their power and a liquid fuel for
sale at the same time. But the cost of oil will have to go up a bit
before that happens.

Nice hearing from you again, ED

Yours truly, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Sun Dec 28 20:35:40 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Inquiry for information about methanol production from biomass
Message-ID: <199712282022_MC2-2D5A-76BD@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Martina:

I have been interested in making methanol from biomass since I wrote about
it in Science in 1973. [“Methanol: A Versatile Fuel for Immediate Use”, T.
B. Reed and R. M. Lerner,
Science 182, 1299 (1973)]. That article changed my life and I have become
more interested in energy than materials, my previous career at MIT.

I have actually converted a small quantity of producer gas to a gallon of
"natural" methanol at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) here
in Golden in 1984. I am appending a list of the books we sell on
gasification and I have marked those dealing specifically with methanol
synthesis and oxygen gasification.

>I am studying environmental engineering at the university of Stuttgart,
Germany. In the moment I am doing my dissertation which submitted for
the diploma. For this I am doing some research on comparing different
processes of producing methanol from biomass or from renewable sources
at the Daimler-Benz AG.

>For me it would be very interesting, if there are already different
pilot plants for producing biomethanol.
I would like to know if there are more details about the production
process, the energy conversion efficiency, the quantity efficiency, the
turnover for a plant, the emissions which are produced during the
process. Maybe there are different publications and reports from
differents studies.

Many groups have set out to make methanol from biomass; none have succeeded
so far, but it is a matter of money and will and no industrialized country
has yet come up with enough of both, since "oil is cheaper". However,
someday oil and natural gas will be more expensive and we will then need to
know about biomass production of methanol.

Good luck with your inquiries, Yours truly, TOM REED
~~~~
BOOKS FROM THE BEF PRESS

PURPOSES OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

Biomass energy and particularly biomass gasification is a field where
publications are often difficult to find. We make available information on
biomass at reasonable prices. We will also make available at $0.15/page
other papers from our extensive library of technical papers on gasification
dating back to the turn of the century. We also act as a clearinghouse to
locate technical assistance for biomass projects. We also publish other
technical books.
Thomas B. Reed

HANDBOOK OF BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS
T. B. Reed and A. Das Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power
cars and trucks during World War II. Yet, after two decades of interest,
there are only a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors
have spent more than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In
this book they discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a
successful "gasifier power system."
ISBN 1-890607-00-2
200pp................... ............. $25.00

**FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER - T. B. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie. In 1980 the Solar Energy
Research Institute initiated a program to develop an oxygen gasifier to
make methanol from biomass. A novel 1 ton/day gasifier was designed and
studied for five years at SERI on air and oxygen. Now a 25 ton/day
gasifier has been operated on both air and oxygen. This book describes the
theory and operation of the two gasifiers in detail and also discusses the
principles and application of gasification as learned in eight yearsby the
author-gasifier team. Initially published by DOE with lavish
illustrations. ISBN 1-890607-03-7
250pp................................ $25.00

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS - A. Das. Long engine life
and reliable operation requires a gas with less than 30 mg of tar and
particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The simplified test methods
described here are adapted from standard ASTM and EPA test procedures for
sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
ISBN 1-890607-09-5
32pp................................. $8.00

TREES - Jean Giono. While we strongly support using biomass for energy, we
are also very concerned about forest destruction. This delightful true
story says more than any sermon on the benefits and methods of
reforestation. ISBN 1-890607-12-6
8pp................................. $1.00

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS & ORDER BLANK

No. Cost
BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988).
ISBN 1-890607-00-2
140pp $25.00 ___ _____

GENGAS: THE SWEDISH CLASSIC ON WOOD FUELED VEHICLES: English translation,
(SERI-1979; DAS 1982) edited T.Reed, D. Jantzen and A. Das, with index.
This is the "Old Testament" of gasification, written by the people involved
in successfully converting 90% of transportation of WW II Sweden to wood
gasifiers.
ISBN 1-890607-01-0
340pp. $25.00 ___ _____

PRODUCER-GAS: ANOTHER FUEL FOR MOTOR TRANSPORT: Ed. Noel Vietmeyer (The
U.S. National Academy of Sciences-1985) A seeing-is-believing primer with
historical and modern pictures of gasifiers. An out-standing text for any
introductory program. ISBN 1-890607-02-9 80pp $8.00 ___
_____

**FUNDAMENTAL STUDY AND SCALEUP OF THE AIR-OXYGEN STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT
GASIFIER: T. Reed, M. Graboski and B. Levie (SERI 1988).Operation of a 1 to
25 ton/day system for power and syn-gas..
ISBN 1-890607-03-7
290pp $25.00 ___ _____

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (1989). Test that
gas!
ISBN 1-890607-04-5
32pp $8.00 ___ _____

TREE CROPS FOR ENERGY CO-PRODUCTION ON FARMS: Tom Milne (SERI) Trees to
grow for energy.
ISBN 1-890607-05-3 260
pp $20.00 ___ _____

SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER-ENGINE SYSTEMS: by A. Kaupp and J. Goss. (1984)
Updates GENGAS and contains engineering data indispensable for the serious
gasifier projects.
ISBN 1-890607-06-1
278pp $25.00 ___ _____

GASIFICATION OF RICE HULLS: THEORY AND PRAXIS: A. Kaupp. Applies
gasification to rice hulls and other agricultural residues. ISBN
1-890607-07-X 303pp $25.00 ___ _____

WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: Nils Nygards (1973). Translation of
recent results of Swedish Agricultural Testing Institute. ISBN
1-890607-08-8 50 pp. $4.00 ___ _____

THE PEGASUS UNIT: THE LOST ART OF DRIVING WITHOUT GASOLINE: by Niels A.
Skov and Mark L. Papworth. Description and detailed drawings of various
gasifiers and systems from World War II.
ISBN 1-890607-09-6 80
pp $15.00 __ ______

**BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: Ed. T. B. Reed and M.
Graboski. Expert articles on biomass to methanol. ISBN 1-890607-10-X
331 pp $30.00...___ _____

CONSTRUCTION OF A SIMPLIFIED WOOD GAS GENERATOR: H. LaFontaine (1989) -
Over 25 drawings and photographs on building a gasifier for fueling IC
engines in a Petroleum Emergency (FEMA RR28).
ISBN 1-890607-11-8
68pp $10.00 ___ _____

TREES: by Jean Giono, 1953. A delightful story which says more than any
lecture on the need for reforestation.
ISBN 1-89060712-6
8 pp $1.00 ___ _____

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

TOTAL
:..........................................................................
............................No. ___ ______
ORDER BLANK (see over): Mail, Fax or E-mail to
BOOK TOTAL ‡
(over).....................................................................
.....................................No. ___ _______
Add $3 handling/order + $1.50/book postage (in US)† 3 + $_________= ______
TOTAL ENCLOSED__________
SHIP TO:
Name______________________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________________
________
Mail orders to The Biomass Energy Foundation Press (BEFP), 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401; FAX 303-278 0560;call 303 278 0558;E-mail
reedtb@Compuserve.com. We'll send invoice with books.

Ordering Information (over): †Shipping: $2.50/book to Canada and Mexico,
all other foreign $9/book (air mail-~1 wk). ‡10% discounts on orders for 3
or more books. Distributor inquiries welcomed. Please include check or
money order with your order. Foreign orders remit by postal order, check
on U.S. Bank or electronic transfer to Bank Rte No: 102 0000 76; Acct. No.
300 800 2911. (Foreign checks can cost $5-10 to clear).

Thanks for your order, Tom Reed

From VHarris001 at aol.com Sun Dec 28 23:54:50 1997
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <b85b1922.34a72cba@aol.com>

>tvoivozhd>>>I can't claim specific experience with bagged material, and no
>knowledge of what type or thickness of plastic might be in use. If it were
common
>two or three mm polyethylene as used in household garbage bags I would expect
>the
>bottom part of the bag to be reduced to blobs and strings at about 150 C, and
>offer no resistance to air flow. The contents of the bag might delay the
>degradation of the top of the bag---to what extent and how long I do not
know, but
>if it is too much and too long, it might be sufficient to just slice open the
top
>of the bag (or abrade the sides)----again assuming the bag contents were not
>compacted enough to choke off air flow through it.

>Sorry I can't be more helpful---too much depends on the character of your
>feedstock.
>If it is not too tightly compressed I think you could get by with abrading
the bag
>periphery---and not necessarily all of that. If it were very tightly
compressed,
>I'd mount a rotary chipper-shredder in the hopper bottom above the fuel-
storage
>chamber and let it chew through everything and discharge it below (and auger
it up
>into your downdraft chamber for continuous feed?)

I'll try abraiding first. If that doesn't work, then the shredder.

What do you think the possibilities are of using the MSW ash as an air plug
for the bottom of the firetube so that the ashbin does not have to be
airtight? This is so that ash removal can be done on a somewhat continuous
basis.

I read in Tom Reed's literature that some ash turns into a fine dust and
chokes off the performance of a gasifier if the ash is not shaken down. I'm
hoping that same dust would be fine enough to prevent air flow up through the
bottom of the firetube.

However, since any airflow would be upward perhaps it would prevent gravity
from packing the ash tightly enough to stop the airflow. I probably have a 2
foot length in the bottom of the firetube to work with.

Anyone else have any experience with this? Any and all help would be
appreciated!

Vernon

vernon_harris@bigfoot.com or
vharris001@aol.com

P.S. I would liked to have seen your gasifier pickup. Is it still around
anywhere? Still operable?

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 29 03:43:14 1997
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Anne and Dean Corson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why do we patent our research?
Message-ID: <34A756E1.65C6@xtra.co.nz>

Hi Everybody - There has been something bugging me for some time now, I
hope someone can un-bug me.

I have been doing my own private (i.e. self funded) research with
respect to bio-mass/plastic pyrolysis, whenever I have tried to get
people interested in what I am doing the same question is always asked,
"Have
you got a patent?".

What is it about getting everything patented?. There are hundreds of
bio-mass/plastic gasification and pyrolysis patents and the principles
are basically the same, why not make it public domain and add to the
progression of this type of technology?. Why are we all afraid of
someone using our researched technology to the betterment of mankind?.
It is
not the idea that sells it is the way it is sold. Why don't I feel safe
with my research documents?. Do people like myself who cannot find the
resources to make ideas work/patented just lose everything and fade
away?.

Any replys to these question will be dealt with by brain-power.

Deano

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Mon Dec 29 09:15:42 1997
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
In-Reply-To: <b85b1922.34a72cba@aol.com>
Message-ID: <34A7095C.666C84CD@roanoke.infi.net>

VHarris001 wrote:

> >tvoivozhd>>>I can't claim specific experience with bagged material, and no
> >knowledge of what type or thickness of plastic might be in use. If it were
> common
> >two or three mm polyethylene as used in household garbage bags I would expect
> >the
> >bottom part of the bag to be reduced to blobs and strings at about 150 C, and
> >offer no resistance to air flow. The contents of the bag might delay the
> >degradation of the top of the bag---to what extent and how long I do not
> know, but
> >if it is too much and too long, it might be sufficient to just slice open the
> top
> >of the bag (or abrade the sides)----again assuming the bag contents were not
> >compacted enough to choke off air flow through it.
>
> >Sorry I can't be more helpful---too much depends on the character of your
> >feedstock.
> >If it is not too tightly compressed I think you could get by with abrading
> the bag
> >periphery---and not necessarily all of that. If it were very tightly
> compressed,
> >I'd mount a rotary chipper-shredder in the hopper bottom above the fuel-
> storage
> >chamber and let it chew through everything and discharge it below (and auger
> it up
> >into your downdraft chamber for continuous feed?)
>
> I'll try abraiding first. If that doesn't work, then the shredder.
>
> What do you think the possibilities are of using the MSW ash as an air plug
> for the bottom of the firetube so that the ashbin does not have to be
> airtight? This is so that ash removal can be done on a somewhat continuous
> basis.

tvoivozhd>>>You'll get some ashes, and enough to (ultimately) impede air flow, but
I doubt it would act as an effective plug. Better to make the ash bin airtight
too.

>
>
> I read in Tom Reed's literature that some ash turns into a fine dust and
> chokes off the performance of a gasifier if the ash is not shaken down. I'm
> hoping that same dust would be fine enough to prevent air flow up through the
> bottom of the firetube.

tvoivozhd>>>just a gradual reduction in performance----and since this is reflected
in gas generation, engine operation would become unsatisfactory long before the
upward air flow
was totally prevented.

>
>
> However, since any airflow would be upward perhaps it would prevent gravity
> from packing the ash tightly enough to stop the airflow. I probably have a 2
> foot length in the bottom of the firetube to work with.

tvoivozhd>>>the length is long enough if the ash would pack tightly, but the
upward air flow in fine ash acts like a lubricant to keep the ash in suspension,
and permit air flow through it..

>
>
> Anyone else have any experience with this? Any and all help would be
> appreciated!
>
> Vernon
>
> vernon_harris@bigfoot.com or
> vharris001@aol.com
>
> P.S. I would liked to have seen your gasifier pickup. Is it still around
> anywhere? Still operable?

tvoivozhd>>>Sold the pickup in 1987 or so and stored the gasifier with a VW van in
a storage yard. A flood scoured it clean. Too bad---only one I ever read about
that used a perforated feed auger in a cylinder as a firebox.

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Mon Dec 29 10:07:38 1997
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why do we patent our research?
In-Reply-To: <34A756E1.65C6@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <34A71589.617CD1F9@roanoke.infi.net>

Anne and Dean Corson wrote:

> Hi Everybody - There has been something bugging me for some time now, I
> hope someone can un-bug me.
>
> I have been doing my own private (i.e. self funded) research with
> respect to bio-mass/plastic pyrolysis, whenever I have tried to get
> people interested in what I am doing the same question is always asked,
> "Have
> you got a patent?".
>
> What is it about getting everything patented?. There are hundreds of
> bio-mass/plastic gasification and pyrolysis patents and the principles
> are basically the same, why not make it public domain and add to the
> progression of this type of technology?. Why are we all afraid of
> someone using our researched technology to the betterment of mankind?.
> It is
> not the idea that sells it is the way it is sold. Why don't I feel safe
> with my research documents?. Do people like myself who cannot find the
> resources to make ideas work/patented just lose everything and fade
> away?.
>
> Any replys to these question will be dealt with by brain-power.
>
> Deano

tvoivozhd>>>A patent is undeniably of value to a patent research
organization and a patent attorney---to any one else it has less or none.

Most people do not understand that most patents are incremental in
improvement, not basic, that there are numerous alternative means of
accomplishing the same mechanical, electrical, electronic, or chemical
objective---normally with little to choose between them in terms of cost or
performance.

A patent is of principal utility to a person or company intending to
incorporate it into production and sale of their own product---again for
the slight improvement, if any in performance, and primarily so that
someone cannot prevent them from producing and selling the product in which
they have invested considerable marketing resources.

A patent is basically the right to sue. This is a two-edged sword, in most
instances doing as much damage to the plaintiff as defendant. Forty
percent of the patents will be invalidated or no infringement found. Of
those that proceed to judgment (many do not), the percentage that collect
is vanishingly small, as are the net proceeds.

Statistically, a company with less than forty million dollars in annual
sales cannot afford to litigate, i.e. "win" a patent lawsuit. Anyone who
has spent three quarters of a million dollars and several years of time in
depositions and court, to recover a gross (not net) total of $200,000,
learns to appreciate the true value of patents.

Keep your daily (witnessed) bound journals, publicize the results
frequently and you will be able to (a) market the product without legal
impediment, if you are capable of doing so (b) feel some satisfaction in
intellectual accomplishment if indeed your idea is a small (but unsaleable
to a manufacturer) improvement. (c) forget the supposed advantages of a
patent (and forgo the cost).

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Mon Dec 29 12:16:06 1997
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: liquid phase methanol
Message-ID: <199712291220_MC2-2D6C-4CCD@compuserve.com>

The "Coolwater" coal-to-methanol project which was mentioned was actually
moved to the Eastman Chemical plant in Tennessee (where there is also a
Texaco coal gasifier). The project is co-funded by the US Dept. of Energy
through its "Clean Coal Technology" program. I believe I read somewhere
that the plant is up and running now. For more information check the DOE's
website at: www.fe.doe.gov. Also, the technology used in the project is
supplied by Air Products, so you may be able to find more info on their
website: www.apci.com or by sending a message to Art Smith at
smithar@apci.com.

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com Mon Dec 29 12:28:28 1997
From: MaryPhillips1 at compuserve.com (Jeff Phillips)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why do we patent our research?
Message-ID: <199712291220_MC2-2D6C-4CCA@compuserve.com>

Deano,

I can certainly appreciate the position you are in. The answer to your
question about why does everyone ask "do you have a patent?" is that few
people are willing to invest their money in something that another company
could copy and make money with. That's the theory at least.

But, I've often wondered if "everyone's" concern is valid. If I were to do
my PhD research over again, I think I'd do a study on the relative success
of non-patented versus patented inventions. As I recall, IBM did not
patent their original PC architecture. As a result there were all kinds of
clones, but also there was a huge market created of which IBM got a
significant share. If IBM had tried to hoard the PC market by patenting as
much as they could, would there have been as many PC software programs
written for IBM PC as there are for DOS/Windows PCs? And would IBM have
been able to sell as many PCs as they have so far? The next time you are
in a software store, compare the number of Windows-based programs on the
shelf to the number of Apple Computer-based programs.

As long as you are able to move faster than the competition, it may not
matter if your technology is protected by patents. Of course, if your
technology requires a lot of money to develop, and you are a one-person
operation, the competition (i.e., companies with deep pockets) may indeed
be able to roll right over you.

Maybe we should let Tom Peters moderate this discussion topic!

Jeff Phillips
Bridgewater, Mass.

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 29 14:23:07 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
In-Reply-To: <199712280845_MC2-2D5C-12BD@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <34A78847.7B61@ix.netcom.com>

Tom -

I've been thinking a great deal about this concern of late, as I'm
working with a young professor at UC Davis who has a very effective
anaerobic digestion technology which digests rice straw ( among other
problematic feedstocks) very efficiently. 400 acres of rice in the
Sacramento Valley produces enough straw to generate about 75 kW of power
in a sustainable manner. 6,000 acres would provide about a megawatt of
sustainable power. In both cases we would use internal combustion
engines, but the efficiency of the larger unit would be 20% greater, and
the cost/kW somewhat less. The farmers are talking $30/ton as the
minimal cost for collection and transportation of the straw, so
efficiency is an important issue. Furthermore, we're not certain we can
engineer a system to compete with natural gas in California under either
scenario.

While we aren't talking megaunit scale by any means, it is an
illustration of the general quandry faced by all the developers of
alternative power options. Fitting a technology to a real market. I
think there is a potential market for units from 5kW to 3 MW, if we can
find a way to validate the technology and optimize the engineering.
However, we need capital to accomplish that, and venture capitalists
want a business plan and a greater comfort level.

I like the idea of Stirling engines for the really small scale units,
but my old EPRI colleague Doug Morris has provided discouraging words re
the progress in that area. I'm looking forward to info on the units
coming on line in New Zealand.

Best to you,
Jane

From a_evald at vip.cybercity.dk Mon Dec 29 18:01:39 1997
From: a_evald at vip.cybercity.dk (Anders Evald)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:26 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT
Message-ID: <01BD14B5.A1A01160@msx-0c-2-25.1033.cybercity.dk>

Dear Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris

I'd very interested in some details about your reference in Denmark. Also
please state references for your company, and please give some details
about the technology. Thank you.

Anders Evald

Centre of Biomass Technology
dk-TEKNIK
Denmark

-----Original Message-----
From: aptour@airpoitiers.fr [SMTP:aptour@airpoitiers.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 3:15 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: ELECTRIFY VILLAGE PROJECT

Dear list members ,

I present here some information on projects on course available worlwide
with our proved technology.

Example:Gaz Generator 600 kVa

PROJECT TO ELECTRIFY VILLAGE EQUIPPED WITH POWER PLANT B2200

Gaz Generator 600 KVA- 437 KWE using 430 kwe+860 kwt

Suppose electricity for a house

-1 Refrigerator
-1 iron
-1 TV
- fews lights
- others smalls household requisites

3 kWe

it means possibility to electrify

430 kwe
________ = 143 HOUSES x 6 persons = 858 inhabitants
3 kwe

Dr. Olivier de Nas de Tourris
M.RE Research & Consult
_____FRANCE______
Fax: 33 5 49 37 93 65

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(A$6`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <`
M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
MD 8`M $```$````0`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````2P``````
M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````&=A<VEF:6-A=&EO;D!C<F5S="YO<F<`
M4TU44 !G87-I9FEC871I;VY 8W)E<W0N;W)G```>``(P`0````4```!33510
M`````!X``S !````%P```&=A<VEF:6-A=&EO;D!C<F5S="YO<F<```,`%0P!
M`````P#^#P8````>``$P`0```!D````G9V%S:69I8V%T:6]N0&-R97-T+F]R
M9R<``````@$+, $````<````4TU44#I'05-)1DE#051)3TY 0U)%4U0N3U)'
M``,``#D`````"P! .@$````>`/9?`0```!<```!G87-I9FEC871I;VY 8W)E
M<W0N;W)G```"`?=?`0```$L`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!G
M87-I9FEC871I;VY 8W)E<W0N;W)G`%--5% `9V%S:69I8V%T:6]N0&-R97-T
M+F]R9P```P#]7P$````#`/]?``````(!]@\!````! ````````(Q8 $$@ $`
M)0```%)%.B!'05,M3#H@14Q%0U122499(%9)3$Q!1T4@4%)/2D5#5 "A"0$%
M@ ,`#@```,T'# `=`!(`#@`A``$`/P$!(( #``X```#-!PP`'0`2``L`* `!
M`$,!`0F `0`A````1C(V1$1"-D,V1C@P1#$Q,3E&,3 T-#0U-3,U-# P,# `
M[@8!`Y &`!P(```A````"P`"``$````+`",```````,`)@``````"P`I````
M```#`"X```````,`-@``````0 `Y`(!*:#M]%+T!'@!P``$````E````4D4Z
M($=!4RU,.B!%3$5#5%))1ED@5DE,3$%'12!04D]*14-4``````(!<0`!````
M%@````&]%'T[`VS;;?. ;Q'1GQ!$15-4`````!X`'@P!````!0```%--5% `
M````'@`?# $````9````85]E=F%L9$!V:7 N8WEB97)C:71Y+F1K``````,`
M!A!F'^U8`P`'$ 0$```>``@0`0```&4```!$14%21%)/3$E624521$5.05-$
M151/55)225-)1%9%4EE)3E1%4D535$5$24Y33TU%1$5404E,4T%"3U5464]5
M4E)%1D5214Y#14E.1$5.34%22T%,4T]03$5!4T535$%415)%``````(!"1 !
M````ZP0``.<$``!J!P``3%I&=>-)#2]W``H!`P'W( *D`^,"`&.": K <V5T
M," '$X<"@P!0#O9P<G$R#_8F?0J ",@@.PEO,C7F-0* "H%U8P!0"P,+8&!N
M9S$P,P+1"\0@!$1E"L%$<BX@3VAL:78(D2 !``>P8?L$(!<Q5 AA!1 /0 JQ
M"H0M"S!C`$$5%3,#P3$X01A$22=D('8$D'GZ( N = 20!Y ;(!J0"X#\(',#
M<!= `0`!D ,0!"!7`: (8 5 >0AA( EP9KD;,6YC%T ;L18@;@# E')K%I!!
M'(!O( M0_Q8P#[ ;T &0&R =6 0@`A 7!< =$P6@;0JP;GDL[1R@;AJ0'Q5G
M%M ?81O_N"!T:!= &R /<&X(\91G>1:05 ^ ;FL=`G8N&$@*@$$AP 20!"!%
MKG8'0 LQ):A#"?!T"7# (&]F($)I`W$$$094)#<81&1K+51%\$M.24L81!XU
M)8H8\2L!0!% ;R0A=!"$,3:T("TM4D\%$")@;@= PP70!Y!S86=E+5,81@\L
M9"PQ"Q,L9FDM,30^- % %L P\PS0,/-B(*I&`V$Z#(-B#^!A!3 %"&% "W!R
M<&]I= D(D7,N`U @6U--V%10.C,?-")=&$4R(%<&8 (P,H=7"8!N!Y!D/F$A
M@18@'= &T!<!,3<!(9 Q.3DW(#,Z=#$U#_!--C<7T#*'9S,7< :0:6,?H"AP
M;D K!0`;42X%L&<V.'5B!FHLD3*'1T%3+4P".B:@3$5#5%))`$99(%9)3$Q!
M@$=%(%!23TH^D7\N_S *%1XJ=@K!%L ;8"#7!X X@@0@+"6*21\`&T'])]$@
M(_ H`2*S"X @D0# _SN2*" #H"Q1/3($($;Q!:!["' ?46$FP ,0`: ?("#Z
M=P6P; /P`0`81 /P(^!_*" =,2Q1&K :D"0I)8I2_QUW2@,CX A@+F AP2@Q
M37'S)H$H,6]P!)!&Q#MP`Z ;.) @@74AP1NQ1W5Y_0!P841&'C5$0#(Q`' =
MT?\AD A0'X$'\#MA4:$ALE"@[&YU.(,H,4$#4#MA1_/?)^$(D 0@!& ;8&PI
M=1^@\2*@87=M`Q #( "0&R#M!"!W1<,[$'HB4 GP3M)O!;$%D21@5G!C')$H
M`6C]+<!H59 @@$B !;!(TB5[F$5X82% 'R Z1U>1$D=7US8P#^!K5F$W)8H_
ME1? 3SYO/W!%44!525!0140W@$F$5$@_@$]715(_@.4_0$Y>`$(R`=!"Q1A$
M`5N?($M602T@-&HS.4!+8' @39 +@&?#8X%<D7=E*SA<<&2AMRRP)9D]`' S
ML!]191\@_RR@5%$ST%F1!;%0H$UR%T#_)8HPX ?P`1 ML5?T:(<SD/,"(&B'
M5%9HA2" !] $('\6P%E@1[!K5BQP1<$$('-_`,!6D 0@9\--<";@'5%Q[G4$
M`%;2)8H@.5!<H#>0OR6*,]!#P08B9E$`D&(#$/=G(C3P9I9F*7481&1U;^#;
M=%<81%]U9716/6_@,/!!< !(3U53107P('YX7& ?`"9Q`B $('9@./PU.!KQ
M#X!Q\ &0`C 8-7]O\F3 *TLJA!:/%Y]OX$U\+E(_<&D!#[ *P ]P(.8F4E$`
M@'5L955T4W5C9$928-!#175D?ME&+&%X/E 9H" YD#0YRSE0.4 Y< `V-26*
M$@$"`(.0``,`$! ``````P`1$ `````#`( 0_____T `!S `]R74?!2]`4 `
M"# `]R74?!2]`0L`)( (( 8``````, ```````!&``````.%`````````P`E
M@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````4H4``+<-```>`": "" &``````# ````
M````1@````!4A0```0````0````X+C ``P`G@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`
M`````84````````+`"B "" &``````# ````````1@`````.A0````````,`
M*8 (( 8``````, ```````!&`````!"%`````````P`J@ @@!@``````P ``
M`````$8`````$84````````#`"N "" &``````# ````````1@`````8A0``
M`````!X`+( (( 8``````, ```````!&`````#:%```!`````0`````````>
M`"V "" &``````# ````````1@`````WA0```0````$`````````'@`N@ @@
M!@``````P ```````$8`````.(4```$````!`````````!X`/0`!````!0``
3`%)%.B ``````P`--/TW```K!(4`
`
end

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Mon Dec 29 21:34:32 1997
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
Message-ID: <199712300239.UAA28056@ns1.corpcomm.net>

Jane -

As an alternative to anaerobic digestion, could you also be interested in
simple gasification of rice straw, to use the lower-Btu gas in an engine?
I've been working with a US company that has an impressive recent track
record in gasifiers, mainly for rice hulls, and is presently attaching a
gas engines to one of them.

If you want more info, let me know and I'll put you in touch.

Bill Hauserman
hauserman@corpcomm.net

----------
> From: Jane H. Turnbull <jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
> Date: Monday, December 29, 1997 5:23 AM
>
> Tom -
>
> I've been thinking a great deal about this concern of late, as I'm
> working with a young professor at UC Davis who has a very effective
> anaerobic digestion technology which digests rice straw ( among other
> problematic feedstocks) very efficiently. 400 acres of rice in the
> Sacramento Valley produces enough straw to generate about 75 kW of power
> in a sustainable manner. 6,000 acres would provide about a megawatt of
> sustainable power. In both cases we would use internal combustion
> engines, but the efficiency of the larger unit would be 20% greater, and
> the cost/kW somewhat less. The farmers are talking $30/ton as the
> minimal cost for collection and transportation of the straw, so
> efficiency is an important issue. Furthermore, we're not certain we can
> engineer a system to compete with natural gas in California under either
> scenario.
>
> While we aren't talking megaunit scale by any means, it is an
> illustration of the general quandry faced by all the developers of
> alternative power options. Fitting a technology to a real market. I
> think there is a potential market for units from 5kW to 3 MW, if we can
> find a way to validate the technology and optimize the engineering.
> However, we need capital to accomplish that, and venture capitalists
> want a business plan and a greater comfort level.
>
> I like the idea of Stirling engines for the really small scale units,
> but my old EPRI colleague Doug Morris has provided discouraging words re
> the progress in that area. I'm looking forward to info on the units
> coming on line in New Zealand.
>
> Best to you,
> Jane
>
>

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Mon Dec 29 21:47:59 1997
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (William B. Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
Message-ID: <199712300252.UAA28381@ns1.corpcomm.net>

Jane -

'Very interesting - and far too logical. The advantage of reliability for
gasifier-diesel is also the seed of their abandonment. It might account
for the lack of promotional enthusiasm by an Indian company that sounded
like it had such a good thing going. If you're riding this issue and want
to check this out in any more detail, the guy in charge of the 300-village
program that started at an Institute in Bangalore is Prof. H.S. Makunda,
mukunda@aero.iisc.ernet.in , in case you don't already know him. Tell'im I
sent ya'.

Happy New Year!

Bill Hauserman

----------
> From: Jane H. Turnbull <jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com>
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: suggestions' request
> Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 3:42 AM
>
> Bill -
>
> I haven't found any commercial heavy duty engines smaller than 40 kW.
> In fact, after a quick general survey, a 75-85 kW Caterpillar seems to
> be the only one to make economic sense at all. I was interested in the
> stirling engines because they could have promise in a 4 to 10 kW range.
>
> Dual-fuel solutions don't make it in those countries which subsidize
> diesel for political reasons - and there are a considerable number of
> those. I have been told that the Indian government supported
> development and sales of biomass gasifiers with engines, but once they
> reached the market, the gasifiers were relegated to the backburner, and
> diesel was used exclusively.
>
> Jane
>

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Mon Dec 29 21:53:20 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
In-Reply-To: <199712300239.UAA28056@ns1.corpcomm.net>
Message-ID: <34A7F1FF.47EC@ix.netcom.com>

Bill-

I'm certainly imterested in any and all gasification options that hold
promise - meaning they can be operated reliably by a non-mechanically
trained average person and could become cost-competitive. I shall look
forward to the information.

Meanwhile, I really do like the anaerobic digester. It does everything
it claims to do and has been doing it for 18 months - with minimal
hassle.

Jane

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Dec 30 00:17:30 1997
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <8d5a64f0.34a884c1@aol.com>

On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Joacim Persson said:

There was a brief discussion about `Superficial Gas Velocity' about a month
ago on the list. From the literature (books and articles) from WW2-period
I get the impression that the cross section area is crucial for the
performance of a gasifier when used by a car engine. (Narrower cross
section -> better idling performance and dynamic response to varying
load, larger area -> higher maximum load.)

One of the features with the charcoal gasifier designed by T Källe during
the war was that the `virtual' area could be varied. He used a rather
unorthodox design with one air inlet tube stuck inside an outlet tube, with
a metal net at the outlet. The inner tube could move inside the outer,
varying the size of the active portion of the metal net. His design was
neither downdraft nor updraft, rather a sort of randomly-round-in-circles-
draft, and wouldn't work well with wood as fuel. (no destillation zone)
...excellent for charcoal though.

I figure there is some sort of `ideal' gas velocity for a given type of
fuel (?), and that a gasifier for an engine which is used under varying
load would benefit from having a cross-section area that could vary along
with it.
Has anyone experimented with variable cross section area for a more
orthodox downdraft gasifier?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Tom Reed responded:

My original discussion of the importance of superficial velocity focussed
mainly on its effect on the flaming pyrolysis zone and I hadn't thought
much about the char reduction zone. I hope in the near future to run a
series of test varying ONLY the SV and testing char yield, gas quality, gas
composition, bed temperature etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Here is my current (albeit amateur) thinking on the subject:

I'd like build a gasifier for a truck with a Ford 460 c.i. engine (Tom Reed's
recommendation in "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems."
I'd also like to be able to gasify between 500 -1500 lbs/hour of MSW.

Superficial velocity, hearth load, cross-sectional area of the air nozzles,
and turndown ratio are all important factors in downdraft gasifier design
(Reed).

Assume the grate is on the side of the firetube and producer gas is drawn
through the grate (like crossdraft gasifiers). Assume each grate lattice
(opening) is connected to a metal tube. When the IC engine is idling, one
butterfly valve is open in only one lattice tube. To accelerate the engine,
additional butterfly valves are opened in several more lattice tubes. The
higher the engine speed required, the more butterfly valves are opened to
their respective lattices. When decelerating, the butterfly valves are
progressively closed to block the draw on the lattices.

This is the same design concept as is used in a gasoline type 4 bbl.
carburetor (multiple venturi's). Full manifold vacuum is present beneath the
butterfly valve, but air/gas mixture only enters the manifold when the
butterfly is opened beneath each specific venturi.

Of course this system doesn't vary the size of the grate. However it would
vary the point at which gas is drawn from the reduction zone, enlarging or
reducing (focusing) the area gas is drawn from as required.

Would this gasifier design allow for the variations needed in superficial
velocity, hearth load and provide an adequate turndown ratio for the 460 c.i.?

Would this then be a high turndown ratio gasifier in which proper sizing
becomes critical?

With a feedstock as variable as MSW and variable demands of the internal
combustion engine, is there a formula for rightsizing the gasifier?

Could a similar butterfly system be employed to match the cross-sectional area
of the air inlet nozzles to the other factors?

As always, any and all help would be appreciated.

Vernon
vernon_harris@bigfoot.com or
vharris001@aol.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Dec 30 00:48:23 1997
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <d20dcb7b.34a88b6e@aol.com>

In a message dated 97-12-29 10:23:50 EST, you write:

<<
tvoivozhd>>>You'll get some ashes, and enough to (ultimately) impede air
flow, but
I doubt it would act as an effective plug. Better to make the ash bin
airtight
too. >>

______________________________________________________________

I've read that it is quite difficult to make any auger system air-tight. I'll
need to auger out ash during operation. Also, I need to have open door access
to the ash pit during operation in order to remove the accumulation of bulky
non-combustibles . . .

What about this . . . Suppose I put enough water in the ash pit to wet the
ash up to the bottom of the firetube. (I should wet the ash anyway, for ease
of handling and disposal purposes). That would certainly add a great deal to
the ability of the ash plug to restrict the flow of air up from the bottom of
the firetube. However, my concern with this method is that the capillary
effect of the ash, combined with the upward draw of the engine vacuum might
pull water too near the hearth zone.

Any thoughts or experience with this?

Otherwise, do you know how I might get the needed access to the ashpit during
operation?

As always, your comments are appreciated!

Vernon

vernon_harris@bigfoot.com

From tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net Tue Dec 30 11:08:14 1997
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
In-Reply-To: <d20dcb7b.34a88b6e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <34A87536.287C0353@roanoke.infi.net>

VHarris001 wrote:

> In a message dated 97-12-29 10:23:50 EST, you write:
>
> <
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> I've read that it is quite difficult to make any auger system air-tight. I'll
> need to auger out ash during operation. Also, I need to have open door access
> to the ash pit during operation in order to remove the accumulation of bulky
> non-combustibles

Whether or not an auger system is airtight, basically depends upon the fineness of
the material and the length of the auger. If you flood an auger with very fine
material, air flow is cut off. Mounted in a v-bottom hopper this is worth
exploring.

There is a possibility that a curved-auger would be an improvement, i.e.,
horizontal across a v-bottom hopper, and curving upward to discharge over its
lip. This would provide added length for sealing, and the vertical section, once
flooded, would stay that way if you provided a sensor which would stop rotation
when the horizontal portion started to empty.

There are such auger systems in use for moving plastic granules in the plastic
industry. I do not remember the names but through Thomas Directory, Plastic
Technology magazine, et. al., you should be able to find the manufacturers and see
what plastics they use to make the auger systems. Some engineering plastics
withstand temperatures up to 600 degrees F. There should also be other sources
which use steel or ceramic universal joints between segmented steel flights---or
that you could fabricate.

> . . .
>
> What about this . . . Suppose I put enough water in the ash pit to wet the
> ash up to the bottom of the firetube. (I should wet the ash anyway, for ease
> of handling and disposal purposes). That would certainly add a great deal to
> the ability of the ash plug to restrict the flow of air up from the bottom of
> the firetube. However, my concern with this method is that the capillary
> effect of the ash, combined with the upward draw of the engine vacuum might
> pull water too near the hearth zone.

tvoivozhd>>>Add a capillary-break? A rotary-grate through which the ashes sift,
and your spray-head(s) below it?tvoivozhd>>>Depending on amount a water spray will
turn fine ash into a slurry or cementitious plug. The bane of ash removal, going
back to coal furnace days was clinkers that had to be broken up to go through the
grates (or manually-removed through the fire-door).. In your illustration you
might not get clinkers---or at least such hard, glassy ones, but as in a
powdered-lime hopper of similar consistency to your fine ashes, if you wet the ash
you could run into "bridging", i.e., your disposal auger would be spinning in a
void instead of carrying anything away Proper water-metering might avoid this,
but you would have to establish maximum-minimum amounts and a means of staying
within them (all subject to Murphy's Law)..

>
>
> Any thoughts or experience with this?
>
> Otherwise, do you know how I might get the needed access to the ashpit during
> operation?

tvoivozhd>>>I think you can work your way through half the problem all right---how
to seal off and move out the fine ash below a rotary grate. The non-combustibles
are another matter since they will be of random size and material. Theoretically
they could be augered out too, but I don't know how you could seal the auger
system without combining them with fine ash---except for a water-sealed system as
described below..

You could make a combination grate-crusher---two or more horizontal
powered-rollers. The product would still not be homogeneous ash though, and
though it would be worth trying, I'm not sure the fine stuff would sufficiently
seal the variegated mix in a discharge auger-system. However by combining the ash
and non-combustibles into one system---suspending the fire-tube above a tank of
water (lower-end immersed to stop air-flow), you could auger or sweep the
non-homogeneous slurry to a discharge chute and valve without affecting the
continuous combustion of biomass in the firetube.

>
>
> As always, your comments are appreciated!
>
> Vernon
>
> vernon_harris@bigfoot.com

From jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com Tue Dec 30 12:49:30 1997
From: jaturnbu at ix.netcom.com (Jane H. Turnbull)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: suggestions' request
In-Reply-To: <199712300252.UAA28381@ns1.corpcomm.net>
Message-ID: <34A8C5C3.2144@ix.netcom.com>

Bill-

I have met Prof. Mukunda and been favorably impressed by his work and
the competency of his colleagues at the Institute; however, I believe
that their gasifier is limited in terms of the feedstocks that it can
handle. Thus, I'm impressed with the versatility of the high solids
digestion process and the very limited O&M that is required.

Best regards,
Jane

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Dec 30 18:11:46 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale MSW gasification in modified cross-draft?
Message-ID: <199712301815_MC2-2D89-D305@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Auger users:

Augers seldom run more than 30% full, so can't form a plug.

Tom Reed

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Dec 30 18:12:02 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Patents, Smoke and Mirrors
Message-ID: <199712301816_MC2-2D89-D30B@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Net:

Quite true that investors in small companies feel protected by patents.
Also often patents can give away key secrets that competitors can work
around.

SO, most SUCCESSFUL patents contain some smoke and mirrors. While our
patent on gold transparent furnaces tells a lot, we don't say a word about
how we apply the gold to the glass so that it will stick. A number of
companies have gone into the business to compete - and gone back out again,
never having learned to make a good mirror.

So, patent, but don't tell all.

Yours truly, TOM REED

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Dec 30 18:12:09 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
Message-ID: <199712301816_MC2-2D89-D309@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Jane:

Unfortunately, the US is not the best place to test smaller scale
processes, since we have already spent the money on a superb infrastructure
that tilts the balance to large scale. Global warming and other concerns
of energy security could tilt it back, but don't hold your breath.

The obvious market for your rice straw digestion ==> power projects would
be India and China - lots of rice, lots of digestors, great need of small
power in villages.

I am interested in the technical aspects of your rice straw digestion -
glad to hear it is going well. Is rice straw particularly easy to digest?
In that case, what about seasonality and storage? Better add a biomass
plantation to your 600 acres.

Have you met Art Krenzel? He is interested in these matters and lives in
Northern California. I'd forward this to him, but my filing cabinet is
(temporarily, I hope) busted and I can't find his address. I believe he is
a member here.

Please post this thread over to the digestion section at CREST. While
their approach to gasification is very different, we have common interest
in engines, scale size etc.

Have a great New Year, TOM REED
essage text written by INTERNET:gasification@crest.org
>
Tom -

Best to you,
Jane

From REEDTB at compuserve.com Tue Dec 30 18:23:13 1997
From: REEDTB at compuserve.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Variable area? and alloys.
Message-ID: <199712301815_MC2-2D89-D306@compuserve.com>

Thomas B. Reed; 303 278 0558 V; ReedTB@Compuserve.Com;
Colorado School of Mines & The Biomass Energy (non-profit)Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Vernon:

I am glad you are focussing on SV as a design parameter, but I have trouble
visualizing your exact plan. Can you send drawing?

I would also recommend solving one problem at a time. MSW presents all
sorts of extra problems not found in wood chips - very hard to feed and
quite variable in constitution. Why not optimize your design first with
chips (not shreds from milling); then bite into the MSW problem.

Good luck and keep in touch,

TOM REED

From JohnCorey at aol.com Wed Dec 31 10:48:27 1997
From: JohnCorey at aol.com (JohnCorey@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: response on Stirling options for biomass
Message-ID: <971231105241_-798321371@mrin51.mx>

Gerry Fleischman @ Idaho Dept of Water resources forwarded the following comm
on Stirling for small biomass generators. As a veteran of the Stirling
development business for ~ 20 yrs, and current chair of the ASME Stirling
Tech committee, it falls to me to give answers on current status and
realities of Stirling power machines (cooling devices are a different story).

Presently, there are no practical Stirling power engines available.
WhisperTech in NZ is making some news with their promises, and we all wish
them the best. Technically, their design seems sound (from a superficial
examination of public documents only). However, there have been MANY such
technically sound designs (including a few of my own), and some backed by
bigger dollars and stronger manufacturing resources and all have foundered on
the fundamental issue of cost versus alternatives. Now, it is true that
Stirlings have little established competiion for biomass fueled power, but is
that market large enough and sufficiently price-insensitive to sustain series
production all by itself? Ordinarily, such secondary markets (relative to
distillate fueled engine-generators) are served at less cost by modifying
existing equipment to avoid capitalizing a low-volume product. We face much
the same problems with solar Stirlings.

In the power range you have noted, there are two fairly well-developed (BUT
STILL PROTOTYPE) Stirlings available, the 7-9 kW SOLO motor from Germany and
the 10-20 kW STM 4-120, from Michigan. Like all Stirlings, these are costly
compared to conventional engines of comparable power, but there they are.

Please contact me at any time if you would like more or other info.

John Corey
CFIC, Inc.
302 Tenth St.
Troy, NY 12180
518-272-3565
fax 272-3582

**
I saw:

rom: DWR06::"owner-gasification@crest.org" 29-DEC-1997 12:32:21.33
To: gasification@crest.org
CC:
Subj: Re: GAS-L: Small Power Thread

Tom -

Best to you,
Jane
**

From phoenix at transport.com Wed Dec 31 14:32:49 1997
From: phoenix at transport.com (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:07:27 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small Power Thread
Message-ID: <199712311938.LAA27145@mail2.transport.com>

Dear Jane,

I just returned from a Christmas Odyssey to find this interesting string.
I have been meaning to contact you on some of your interesting concepts of
power generation by agriculture residue utilization. I have just completed
a 425,000 acre project of similar problems in the Willamette Valley of
Oregon where several million tons of biomass are produced annually. The
solution which offers the greatest sustainability is on-farm composting.
All the mineral and organic matter is retained in the same general area
where the biomass was produced. A farmer enters an implicit contract with
nature to return a significant amount of the organic matter to the soil to
enhance soil tilth. If this is not done as a matter of routine the soil's
ability to retain water, fight disease, remain aerobic, etc all suffer.
Rice straw and hulls fit into this program as well.

Tom Reed and I have discussed the systems approach at great length where we
attack a component of the overall problem and successfully solve that
narrow piece, only to find we lost the war. I respect his opinions highly
however feel ag residues are a special problem worthy of wider
consideration.

I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this with you directly should
you choose. I can be reached at 360-666-1883 or phoenix@transport.com
should you desire to contact me.

Art Krenzel

>
> Have you met Art Krenzel? He is interested in these matters and lives in
> Northern California. I'd forward this to him, but my filing cabinet is
> (temporarily, I hope) busted and I can't find his address. I believe he
is
> a member here.

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

December 1997 Gasification Archive